← Arbitrumreviewed 2026-09-06 · 44 claims checked
Fact-check findings
What an automated fact-checker found when it re-read Arbitrum against the sources the page cites. Only the most recent review is shown.
Read this first
These findings are produced by an automated reviewer, and its results vary between runs: the same page, checked three times on the same day, came back with 15%, 20% and 34% of its claims disputed, mostly because each run extracted a different number of claims. Treat what follows as leads, not rulings.
“Disputed” means the reviewer could not reconcile the claim with the evidence it cited. It does not mean the claim is false. “Unverifiable” means no reachable source settled it either way.
Nothing here changes the page on its own. A proposed correction is applied only after a human moderator approves it; until then the page reads as it did when reviewed.
disputed
8 claimsThe reviewer could not reconcile the claim with the evidence it cited. This is a lead, not a ruling that the claim is false.
- #3[disputed][awaiting moderator]in section: Founders and Team Background
“Harry Kalodner, the CTO, previously worked as a researcher at Microsoft Research with a focus on blockchain security and privacy.”
reviewerHarry Kalodner, the CTO, previously worked as a researcher at Microsoft Research with a focus on blockchain security and privacy.Multiple independent biographical sources (Crunchbase, LinkedIn, IQ.wiki) describe Kalodner's pre-Offchain-Labs background as an Apple intern and Princeton PhD researcher; none mention Microsoft Research. The specific employer claim does not match his documented history and could not be corroborated.Proposed correction (not yet applied)Harry Kalodner, the CTO, was a doctoral researcher at Princeton focused on blockchain security and privacy before co-founding Offchain Labs. - #9[disputed][awaiting moderator]in section: Protocol Security and Exploits
“The Arbitrum Sepolia testnet suffered a separate outage in early 2025 affecting its sequencer, batch poster, and validator.”
reviewerThe Arbitrum Sepolia testnet suffered a separate outage in early 2025 affecting its sequencer, batch poster, and validator.No section source is cited for this specific sentence. The documented Sepolia outage matching this component list (sequencer, batch poster, validator) occurred in October 2025, not 'early 2025.' A separate March 2026 Sepolia consensus-halt incident also postdates 'early 2025.'Proposed correction (not yet applied)The Arbitrum Sepolia testnet suffered a separate outage in October 2025 affecting its sequencer, batch poster, and validator. - #10[disputed][awaiting moderator]in section: Protocol Security and Exploits
“A critical deployer account exploit in 2024 resulted in a $1.5M loss related to a compromised contract deployer account with elevated privileges managing the USDG and TLP projects, though this was not a flaw in the core Arbitrum protocol.”
reviewerA critical deployer account exploit in 2024 resulted in a $1.5M loss related to a compromised deployer account managing the USDG and TLP projects.The cited source itself is dated January 2026 and describes a contemporaneous event; the page mislabels the year as 2024, misplacing a 2026 incident roughly two years earlier in its own narrative sequence.Proposed correction (not yet applied)A critical deployer account exploit in 2026 resulted in a $1.5M loss related to a compromised contract deployer account with elevated privileges managing the USDG and TLP projects, though this was not a flaw in the core Arbitrum protocol. - #19[disputed][awaiting moderator]in section: Token Distribution and Airdrop Controversy
“All investor and team tokens were subject to four-year lockups, with the first unlock occurring one year after the token generation event (March 16, 2023), followed by monthly unlocks for three years.”
reviewerThe first token unlock occurred one year after the token generation event on March 16, 2023.This sentence contradicts the page's own opening sentence in the same section, which states the token launched on March 23, 2023. Independent tokenomics trackers anchor the TGE and vesting cliff to March 23, 2023; March 16, 2023 appears to conflate the TGE date with the earlier date the airdrop/DAO transition was announced.Proposed correction (not yet applied)All investor and team tokens were subject to four-year lockups, with the first unlock occurring one year after the token generation event (March 23, 2023), followed by monthly unlocks for three years. - #31[disputed][awaiting moderator]in section: Sequencer Centralization and Decentralization Roadmap
“The launch elevated Arbitrum to L2BEAT Stage 1 classification.”
reviewerThe BoLD launch elevated Arbitrum to L2BEAT Stage 1 classification.Independent reporting places Arbitrum's L2BEAT Stage 1 reclassification in January 2026, not as an immediate result of the February 2025 BoLD launch. The page implies the two events were essentially simultaneous.Proposed correction (not yet applied)L2BEAT elevated Arbitrum to Stage 1 classification in January 2026, after BoLD had been live long enough to satisfy the criteria. - #32[disputed][awaiting moderator]in the summary
“It is the largest Layer-2 by total value locked and has achieved L2BEAT Stage 1 decentralization through its BoLD permissionless validation protocol launched in early 2025.”
reviewerArbitrum achieved L2BEAT Stage 1 decentralization through BoLD, launched in early 2025 (summary framing).Same underlying date-conflation defect as sections[6].Proposed correction (not yet applied)It is the largest Layer-2 by total value locked and, after its BoLD permissionless validation protocol launched in early 2025, achieved L2BEAT Stage 1 decentralization in January 2026. - #33[disputed][awaiting moderator]in the timeline
“enabling any party to become a validator and elevating Arbitrum to L2BEAT Stage 1”
reviewerBoLD's February 2025 launch (timeline entry) elevated Arbitrum to L2BEAT Stage 1.Same underlying date-conflation defect as summary and sections[6]; the timeline dates the Stage 1 milestone to 2025-02 alongside the BoLD launch when it actually occurred roughly 11 months later.Proposed correction (not yet applied)enabling any party to become a validator; L2BEAT would elevate Arbitrum to Stage 1 classification in January 2026, after BoLD had been live long enough to satisfy the criteria - #38[disputed][awaiting moderator]in section: Security Council Emergency Powers and the KelpDAO Freeze
“On May 9, 2026, the court modified the restraining order to allow transfer to a wallet controlled by Aave LLC, which agreed to be bound by the restraining notice, clearing a path for victim compensation while preserving the creditors' legal claims.”
reviewerOn May 9, 2026, the court modified the restraining order to allow transfer to a wallet controlled by Aave LLC.Sources are split between May 8 and May 9 for this order; the most specific sourcing (day-of-week reference corroborated by calendar computation) points to Friday, May 8, one day earlier than the page states.Proposed correction (not yet applied)On May 8, 2026, the court modified the restraining order to allow transfer to a wallet controlled by Aave LLC, which agreed to be bound by the restraining notice, clearing a path for victim compensation while preserving the creditors' legal claims.
unverifiable
6 claimsNo source the reviewer could reach confirms or contradicts the claim.
- #20[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Token Distribution and Airdrop Controversy
“Critics noted that the combined insider allocation to team and investors (approximately 44%) exceeded the comparable figure for Optimism's OP token (approximately 36%), making the distribution comparatively concentrated.”
reviewerCombined team+investor allocation (~44%) exceeded Optimism's comparable figure (~36%).No section source specifically supports the Optimism comparison figure; not independently verified within the scope of this review. - #24[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Token Distribution and Airdrop Controversy
“The token reached an all-time high of $2.40 on January 12, 2024, and as of mid-May 2026 was trading near $0.14, approximately 94% below its peak.”
reviewerAs of mid-May 2026, ARB was trading near $0.14, approximately 94% below its peak.The specific mid-May 2026 price point was not independently re-verified within the scope of this review, though it is directionally plausible given the ATH date. - #27[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Gaming Catalyst Program Controversy
“Additional concerns raised included the departure of key backers such as Treasure DAO, attempts by GCP contributors to reduce reporting requirements while increasing their own compensation, and a decline in the ARB price that had reduced the program's market value from approximately $215 million to around $86 million.”
reviewerBy March 2025 the GCP's market value had declined from ~$215M to ~$86M.Plausible given ARB's price decline, but the specific $86M figure was not independently re-derived within the scope of this review. - #36[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Security Council Emergency Powers and the KelpDAO Freeze
“Offchain Labs co-founder Steven Goldfeder defended the action, stating the DAO could not be consulted in advance because doing so 'essentially means North Korea is consulted.'”
reviewerGoldfeder stated the DAO could not be consulted in advance because doing so 'essentially means North Korea is consulted.'Could not independently locate this exact quote within the scope of this review; not contradicted by any source found, but also not directly confirmed verbatim. - #43[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Ecosystem Metrics and Adoption
“Franklin Templeton and WisdomTree expanded their real-world asset (RWA) activity on-chain; RWA volume on Arbitrum grew more than sevenfold year-on-year to over $800 million.”
reviewerRWA volume on Arbitrum grew more than sevenfold year-on-year to over $800 million.Not independently re-verified within the scope of this review. - #44[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Ecosystem Metrics and Adoption
“The Orbit chains program — enabling third parties to deploy custom chains using the Arbitrum technology stack — had 41 chains live on mainnet and over 100 in development across DeFi, RWA, gaming, AI, and DePIN use cases as of 2025, with Orbit chains sharing 9-10% of fees with the Arbitrum DAO.”
reviewerThe Orbit chains program had 41 chains live on mainnet and over 100 in development, sharing 9-10% of fees with the DAO.Not independently re-verified within the scope of this review.
partially supported
1 claimThe cited evidence supports part of the claim but not all of it.
- #39[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in the timeline
“Arbitrum DAO votes to approve the $71M ETH release despite the ongoing U.S. seizure fight. A Manhattan federal judge modifies the restraining order to allow transfer to an Aave LLC wallet, which agreed to be bound by the notice.”
reviewerOn May 8, 2026, the Arbitrum DAO voted to approve the $71M ETH release and a judge modified the restraining order the same day.The underlying governance and legal events are real, but the timeline entry compresses a delegate temperature-check vote (May 7) and a court order (May 8) into a single date and overstates the vote as a completed DAO approval rather than a preliminary temperature check.
confirmed
29 claimsThe cited evidence supports the claim as written.
- #1[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Founders and Team Background
“Ed Felten served as Deputy U.S. Chief Technology Officer under the Obama administration and is a retired Princeton University Professor of Computer Science and Public Affairs; he holds a PhD from the University of Washington and currently serves as Chief Scientist at Offchain Labs.”
reviewerEd Felten served as Deputy U.S. CTO under Obama, is a retired Princeton professor, and holds a PhD from the University of Washington.Independently corroborated via University of Washington's own alumni records and multiple biographical sources. - #2[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Founders and Team Background
“Steven Goldfeder, the CEO, holds a PhD in computer science from Princeton and co-authored the widely used textbook 'Bitcoin and Cryptocurrency Technologies' with Felten.”
reviewerSteven Goldfeder, the CEO, holds a PhD in computer science from Princeton and co-authored 'Bitcoin and Cryptocurrency Technologies' with Felten.Goldfeder's Princeton PhD and co-authorship of the textbook are well documented and uncontested. - #4[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Founders and Team Background
“Offchain Labs raised a $3.7M seed round in 2019 led by Pantera Capital, a $20M Series A in April 2021, and a $120M Series B in August 2021 led by Lightspeed Venture Partners at a $1.2 billion valuation, with participation from Polychain Capital, Ribbit Capital, Redpoint Ventures, Pantera Capital, Alameda Research, and Mark Cuban.”
reviewerOffchain Labs raised a $3.7M seed round in 2019 led by Pantera Capital.Confirmed by original TechCrunch reporting. - #5[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Founders and Team Background
“Offchain Labs raised a $3.7M seed round in 2019 led by Pantera Capital, a $20M Series A in April 2021, and a $120M Series B in August 2021 led by Lightspeed Venture Partners at a $1.2 billion valuation, with participation from Polychain Capital, Ribbit Capital, Redpoint Ventures, Pantera Capital, Alameda Research, and Mark Cuban.”
reviewerOffchain Labs raised a $20M Series A in April 2021.Independently corroborated via Crunchbase funding round record. - #6[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Founders and Team Background
“Offchain Labs raised a $3.7M seed round in 2019 led by Pantera Capital, a $20M Series A in April 2021, and a $120M Series B in August 2021 led by Lightspeed Venture Partners at a $1.2 billion valuation, with participation from Polychain Capital, Ribbit Capital, Redpoint Ventures, Pantera Capital, Alameda Research, and Mark Cuban.”
reviewer$120M Series B in August 2021 led by Lightspeed at a $1.2B valuation with the named investor list.$120M figure (not $100M, as one secondary aggregator summary suggested) is confirmed by the original TechCrunch headline and multiple contemporaneous outlets (Yahoo, Blockworks, BeInCrypto). - #7[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Protocol Security and Exploits
“On December 15, 2023, the Arbitrum One sequencer experienced a roughly 78-minute outage beginning at 10:29 AM EST, caused by a sustained surge of Ordinals-style inscriptions that generated a transaction backlog in the batch poster.”
reviewerOn December 15, 2023, Arbitrum One's sequencer experienced a roughly 78-minute outage beginning at 10:29 AM EST caused by an Ordinals-style inscription surge.Consistent with contemporaneous reporting. - #8[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Protocol Security and Exploits
“In September 2024, security researchers disclosed a high-severity denial-of-service vulnerability in Arbitrum Stylus: a logic flaw in module import validation allowed deployment of a faulty Stylus program that could crash the Nitro sequencer at no cost to the attacker. The Arbitrum Foundation rated it High severity and awarded an $80,000 bounty.”
reviewerA September 2024 Arbitrum Stylus DoS vulnerability was rated High severity with an $80,000 bounty.Matches the primary security research disclosure. - #11[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Protocol Security and Exploits
“Radiant Capital, a DeFi lending protocol operating on Arbitrum, suffered a $50M exploit on October 16, 2024, when attackers — later attributed to the North Korea-linked UNC4736 group by Mandiant — compromised three developer devices to sign fraudulent transactions through a manipulated Safe{Wallet} interface, draining funds from Arbitrum and BNB Chain markets.”
reviewerRadiant Capital suffered a $50M exploit on October 16, 2024, later attributed to North Korea's UNC4736 group by Mandiant.Attribution, date, and attack mechanism independently corroborated. - #12[confirmed][no action needed]in section: AIP-1 Governance Crisis and 'Decentralization Theater' Allegations
“On March 31, 2023, days after the ARB token airdrop, the Arbitrum Foundation published AIP-1, an omnibus governance proposal covering the creation of the Arbitrum DAO, appointment of the Security Council, and the transfer of 750 million ARB tokens (worth approximately $1 billion at the time) to a newly created Administrative Budget Wallet under foundation control.”
reviewerAIP-1 was published March 31, 2023, proposing transfer of 750 million ARB to a Foundation-controlled wallet.Matches well-documented contemporaneous reporting on AIP-1. - #13[confirmed][no action needed]in section: AIP-1 Governance Crisis and 'Decentralization Theater' Allegations
“The Foundation had sold 10 million ARB tokens for USDC and DAI to cover operating expenses, and had loaned an additional 40 million ARB to market maker Wintermute, all before ARB holders had formally approved the budget.”
reviewerThe Foundation sold 10M ARB and loaned 40M ARB to Wintermute before the AIP-1 vote concluded.This is one of the most widely reported facts of the episode and matches the cited CoinDesk reporting. - #14[confirmed][no action needed]in section: AIP-1 Governance Crisis and 'Decentralization Theater' Allegations
“More than 76% of votes cast in AIP-1 were against the proposal.”
reviewerMore than 76% of votes cast in AIP-1 were against the proposal.Consistent with contemporaneous reporting (The Block headline references ~77% disapproval, within rounding of the page's 76% figure). - #15[confirmed][no action needed]in section: AIP-1 Governance Crisis and 'Decentralization Theater' Allegations
“DeFi advocate Chris Blec and others publicly characterized the situation as 'decentralization theatre.'”
reviewerChris Blec and others publicly characterized the situation as 'decentralization theatre.'The phrase and its attribution to community criticism of AIP-1 are corroborated, though the exact originating quote from Blec was not independently located verbatim. - #16[confirmed][no action needed]in section: AIP-1 Governance Crisis and 'Decentralization Theater' Allegations
“Co-founder Steven Goldfeder subsequently addressed the controversy, describing the episode as a 'communication blunder' rather than a fundamental governance failure and arguing that decentralization is a progressive process.”
reviewerGoldfeder described the episode as a 'communication blunder' rather than a fundamental governance failure.Matches the cited CoinDesk headline and topic. - #17[confirmed][no action needed]in section: AIP-1 Governance Crisis and 'Decentralization Theater' Allegations
“A follow-on proposal, AIP-1.05, which sought to return 700 million ARB tokens 'unjustly allocated' to the Foundation, was itself rejected by 83% of participating voters, indicating that while the process was criticized, the community did not ultimately support full reversal.”
reviewerAIP-1.05, seeking return of 700 million ARB, was rejected by 83% of participating voters.Minor rounding variance (83% vs. ~84%) does not materially affect accuracy. - #18[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Token Distribution and Airdrop Controversy
“The ARB token launched on March 23, 2023, with a total supply of 10 billion tokens. The initial distribution allocated 42.78% (4.278 billion ARB) to the Arbitrum DAO treasury, 26.94% (2.694 billion ARB) to Offchain Labs team members, future team, and advisors, 17.53% (1.753 billion ARB) to Offchain Labs investors, 11.62% (1.162 billion ARB) to users via the public airdrop, and 1.13% (113 million ARB) to DAOs building on Arbitrum.”
reviewerThe ARB token launched March 23, 2023, with a 10 billion total supply and the stated distribution percentages.Matches widely-cited official ARB tokenomics figures. - #21[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Token Distribution and Airdrop Controversy
“Reports subsequently emerged of airdrop farmers having consolidated approximately $3.3 million worth of tokens from 1,496 wallets into two wallets, illustrating Sybil activity but not insider misconduct.”
reviewerAirdrop farmers consolidated ~$3.3 million from 1,496 wallets into two wallets.Independently corroborated even though not directly cited in the section's source list. - #22[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Token Distribution and Airdrop Controversy
“As of May 2026, approximately 6.15 billion ARB tokens were in circulation, representing 61.5% of the maximum supply of 10 billion.”
reviewerAs of May 2026, approximately 6.15 billion ARB (61.5% of max supply) were in circulation.Confirmed by independent tokenomics tracker. - #23[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Token Distribution and Airdrop Controversy
“The token reached an all-time high of $2.40 on January 12, 2024, and as of mid-May 2026 was trading near $0.14, approximately 94% below its peak.”
reviewerARB reached an all-time high of $2.40 on January 12, 2024.ATH figure and date are confirmed by multiple independent price trackers. - #25[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Gaming Catalyst Program Controversy
“The Arbitrum DAO approved the Gaming Catalyst Program (GCP) in mid-2023, allocating 225 million ARB tokens intended to accelerate web3 gaming adoption on the Arbitrum and Orbit ecosystems over three years. At the time of approval, the allocation was valued at approximately $215 million.”
reviewerThe Gaming Catalyst Program allocated 225 million ARB (~$215M at approval) in mid-2023.Matches cited reporting on GCP size and valuation at approval. - #26[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Gaming Catalyst Program Controversy
“A recall proposal sought to return approximately 220 million ARB tokens from the GCP's 3-of-5 multisig wallet to the DAO treasury; one delegate described it as 'unconscionable to continue to allow a 3/5 multisig hold $120M in ARB when they have failed to meet their agreed on oversight obligations.'”
reviewerA delegate described it as 'unconscionable to continue to allow a 3/5 multisig hold $120M in ARB when they have failed to meet their agreed on oversight obligations.'Quote verified verbatim against the primary cited source. - #28[confirmed][no action needed]in section: DAO Governance and Vote-Buying Concerns
“In April 2025, a vote-buying incident drew significant attention: an account known as hitmonlee.eth spent approximately 5 ETH (roughly $10,000) through the Lobby Finance platform to acquire voting power equivalent to 19.3 million ARB tokens, then used that influence to elect CupOJoseph to the newly formed Oversight and Transparency Committee. The financial incentive was stark: the committee seat carried compensation of 66 ETH over 12 months plus a potential 100,000 ARB bonus, making the $10,000 investment highly profitable.”
reviewerhitmonlee.eth spent ~5 ETH (~$10,000) via Lobby Finance to acquire 19.3M ARB in voting power, electing CupOJoseph to a committee seat worth 66 ETH + 100,000 ARB bonus.All specific figures independently corroborated across multiple outlets. - #29[confirmed][no action needed]in section: DAO Governance and Vote-Buying Concerns
“On the structural side, the Security Council — a 12-member elected body — holds emergency powers via a 9-of-12 multisig that can upgrade all core system contracts without a full DAO vote.”
reviewerThe Security Council is a 12-member elected body holding emergency powers via a 9-of-12 multisig.Consistent with widely documented Arbitrum Security Council structure, also referenced by the KelpDAO freeze reporting (9-of-12 multisig). - #30[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Sequencer Centralization and Decentralization Roadmap
“A key milestone toward decentralization was the February 2025 mainnet launch of BoLD (Bounded Liquidity Delay), Arbitrum's permissionless dispute resolution protocol for Arbitrum One and Nova.”
reviewerBoLD launched on Arbitrum One and Nova mainnet in February 2025, enabling permissionless validation.Matches cited reporting and independent sources on BoLD's February 2025 mainnet deployment. - #34[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Security Council Emergency Powers and the KelpDAO Freeze
“In April 2026, Arbitrum's Security Council invoked its emergency 9-of-12 multisig powers to freeze 30,766 ETH (approximately $71 million) associated with the April 18, 2026 KelpDAO exploit, in which attackers — alleged to be the North Korea-linked Lazarus Group — drained approximately $292 million from KelpDAO's LayerZero cross-chain bridge.”
reviewerKelpDAO suffered a $292M exploit on April 18, 2026, attributed to the North Korea-linked Lazarus Group.Amount, date, and attribution independently corroborated. - #35[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Security Council Emergency Powers and the KelpDAO Freeze
“The freeze was praised by some as a responsible use of emergency governance but condemned by others as proof that Arbitrum's 'decentralization' is nominal — that a small elected body can unilaterally intercept and relocate funds on the chain.”
reviewerSecurity Council froze 30,766 ETH (~$71M) via a 9-of-12 emergency multisig.Confirmed by independent reporting including community reaction characterization. - #37[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Security Council Emergency Powers and the KelpDAO Freeze
“On May 1, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a restraining order blocking the Arbitrum DAO from transferring the frozen ETH, after terrorism-judgment creditors (beneficiaries of judgments in Kim v. DPRK, Kaplan v. DPRK, and Calderon-Cardona v. DPRK, representing combined claims exceeding $877 million) asserted rights over assets linked to North Korean actors.”
reviewerOn May 1, 2026, SDNY issued a restraining order after terrorism-judgment creditors (Kim, Kaplan, Calderon-Cardona v. DPRK, combined claims exceeding $877M) asserted rights over the frozen ETH.All figures and case names independently corroborated. - #40[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Regulatory Status and Securities Classification Risk
“In August 2024, Prometheum Capital — a controversial SEC-registered and FINRA-member special purpose broker-dealer — added ARB to its custodial platform, explicitly treating it as a 'digital asset security.'”
reviewerIn August 2024, Prometheum Capital added ARB to its custodial platform, treating it as a 'digital asset security.'Matches the cited CoinDesk headline directly. - #41[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Ecosystem Metrics and Adoption
“By mid-2025, Arbitrum reported approximately $17-20 billion in TVL, representing approximately 35% of total L2 market share.”
reviewerBy mid-2025, Arbitrum reported approximately $17-20B in TVL, representing ~35% of L2 market share.Range and share figure independently corroborated. - #42[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Ecosystem Metrics and Adoption
“Institutional adoption accelerated in 2025: Robinhood launched tokenized stocks and ETFs on Arbitrum, scaling to nearly 2,000 listed assets within six months.”
reviewerRobinhood scaled tokenized stocks/ETFs on Arbitrum to nearly 2,000 listed assets within six months.Timeline (June 2025 launch to ~2,000 assets by December 2025) matches the page's six-month framing.
How this fits together. The reviewer reads the published page and its cited sources and records one finding per claim. A human moderator decides whether each proposed correction is applied; those decisions, and the score changes they cause, appear in the audit log. Earlier review runs are not shown here; only the latest reflects the page as it stands.