Skip to main content
AVOID.NET
← TexCat10 decisions on this page

Audit log

Every state-changing event for TexCat: moderation decisions on community submissions, plus corrections and updates from the news pipeline. URL-based decisions are designed to carry three independent witnesses — the original source, an Internet Archive snapshot, and a Solana memo signed by our publicly-disclosed publisher key. Archive coverage is still being backfilled, so each decision below reports its own snapshot status rather than assuming one exists.

  1. #1reviewby reviewerreviewer
    2026-10-26 18:40:31Z
    Score: 18 → 18 (no score change)
    The site description and the DEXTools stub-page numbers are accurate. The page's central finding is wrong: it treats the token mint address as a pair, concludes there is no trading, and lists the official token's real pair (CzcF...) as a separate conflicting contract. That pair shows about $44k 24h volume and $38k liquidity, though with unreliable price data. No regulatory or press record was found.
    anchoranchored
    chain
    ●mainnet-betaslot 461,769,361
    sig
    37kaMqmDkwQw…ZqA9D4WCexplorer ↗
    hash
    7FXH8SwWUeab…x3ZbEctQsha256 → base58
    verifying row…full verify ↗
    canonical bytes (1282 B) ▸
    {"actor":"reviewer","artifact_identity":"115c1cd2cf56da7747505deed4a73b7a","blocked_count":1,"decided_at":"2026-10-26T18:40:31.405Z","decision":"review","disputed_pct":0.3333,"findings_hash":"8euPgS8f3wDKw7qKfqetK3MG5bQXXmgCz6t7vesr6XiT","investigation_id":"7a9e565d-b19d-4921-9eed-3ebdf264b9cd","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":18,"omissions":{"material":1,"total":1},"page_content_hash":"c3fa594c23a5dcecc33caa814a957f2b875015a71b089222ffc7306febcc9618","page_slug":"texcat","prev_score":18,"reason":"The site description and the DEXTools stub-page numbers are accurate. The page's central finding is wrong: it treats the token mint address as a pair, concludes there is no trading, and lists the official token's real pair (CzcF...) as a separate conflicting contract. That pair shows about $44k 24h volume and $38k liquidity, though with unreliable price data. No regulatory or press record was found.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":0,"scored_claims":9,"sequence_num":1,"subject_status":"unknown","subject_status_contradicts_page":false,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}
    Verify offline (run on your own machine)
    python -m src.verify_decision 2f941fa4-506f-4080-9dc0-3917eb69afbe
  2. #2review reviseby judgejudge
    2026-10-26 18:40:31Z
    Score: 18 → 0 (-22)
    Of 10 claim findings, 1 was unverifiable because the source blocked the reviewer (Blockspot, claim_findings[7]) and is excluded, leaving 3 disputed out of 9 (about 33%), which falls in the significant band. The disputed items are the page's central conclusion: claim_findings[3] and [9] say there is no recent trading, but that rests on a DEXTools URL that uses the token mint as the pair id, and claim_findings[4] lists the official token's own pair (CzcF...) as a separate conflicting contract. The review also reports a material omission, that this pair shows trading and liquidity with unreliable price data. Descriptions of the site, the DEXTools stub-page figures, the second pair and the absence of regulatory records were confirmed or partly supported, and no shutdown or sanction was found, so the page needs correction rather than delisting.
    anchoranchored
    chain
    ●mainnet-betaslot 461,769,366
    sig
    4RHUYGQumTrH…tfcZjfnNexplorer ↗
    hash
    d898C3Tno8nP…5cAWTBrgsha256 → base58
    verifying row…full verify ↗
    canonical bytes (2104 B) ▸
    {"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"115c1cd2cf56da7747505deed4a73b7a","band_override":null,"blocked_count":1,"decided_at":"2026-10-26T18:40:31.405Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.3333,"investigation_id":"7a9e565d-b19d-4921-9eed-3ebdf264b9cd","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":0,"page_slug":"texcat","prev_score":18,"reason":"Of 10 claim findings, 1 was unverifiable because the source blocked the reviewer (Blockspot, claim_findings[7]) and is excluded, leaving 3 disputed out of 9 (about 33%), which falls in the significant band. The disputed items are the page's central conclusion: claim_findings[3] and [9] say there is no recent trading, but that rests on a DEXTools URL that uses the token mint as the pair id, and claim_findings[4] lists the official token's own pair (CzcF...) as a separate conflicting contract. The review also reports a material omission, that this pair shows trading and liquidity with unreliable price data. Descriptions of the site, the DEXTools stub-page figures, the second pair and the absence of regulatory records were confirmed or partly supported, and no shutdown or sanction was found, so the page needs correction rather than delisting.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":-22,"score_limit":{"applied":-22,"limited":false,"proposed":-22,"rule":"second_opinion_agreed","second":-22},"scored_claims":9,"sequence_num":2,"severity_override":{"applied":true,"band":"significant","from_band":"significant","reason":"The review reports a material omission (the pair linked from texcat.fun shows about $44k 24h volume and $38k liquidity, which the page leaves out). The percentage band is already significant, so the omission confirms that band and rules out a lower one. The verdict was not pushed to deny because the omission is not a shutdown or sanction and the reviewer confidence is 0.7."},"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}
    Verify offline (run on your own machine)
    python -m src.verify_decision d49d9384-81eb-42f6-bf92-9a546eb4192e
  3. #3reviewby reviewerreviewer
    2026-10-27 10:43:07Z
    Score: 0 → 0 (no score change)
    Descriptive claims about texcat.fun and the G99R pair hold, and no adverse events were found. The DEXT Score for the official pair is stale or wrong: DEXTools now shows 76/100, not 0/100. The summary also mislabels the DEXT Score as an audit score. The Blockspot figures could not be checked because the site returned 403.
    anchoranchored
    chain
    ●mainnet-betaslot 462,040,856
    sig
    4E6K9FLqHAFU…ePksp8Mnexplorer ↗
    hash
    tLywbjkataEK…iQQ7mtaesha256 → base58
    verifying row…full verify ↗
    canonical bytes (1165 B) ▸
    {"actor":"reviewer","artifact_identity":"f44a5098f49bc517a0805c67f414cb7b","blocked_count":1,"decided_at":"2026-10-27T10:43:07.282Z","decision":"review","disputed_pct":0.2857,"findings_hash":"2TbRatzLVfAwBqHHEHT12BM43jb4xRKRmb4SEmY28Brr","investigation_id":"7a9e565d-b19d-4921-9eed-3ebdf264b9cd","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":0,"page_content_hash":"3ab08205080b9b8823dcc606183b0f8ccd7efd3db760e5ca15c11ee45341b03d","page_slug":"texcat","prev_score":0,"reason":"Descriptive claims about texcat.fun and the G99R pair hold, and no adverse events were found. The DEXT Score for the official pair is stale or wrong: DEXTools now shows 76/100, not 0/100. The summary also mislabels the DEXT Score as an audit score. The Blockspot figures could not be checked because the site returned 403.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":0,"scored_claims":7,"sequence_num":3,"subject_status":"operating","subject_status_contradicts_page":false,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}
    Verify offline (run on your own machine)
    python -m src.verify_decision 2f8ddde3-60d0-4f52-b18e-77dc97e5ba48
  4. #4review reviseby judgejudge
    2026-10-27 10:43:07Z
    Score: 0 → 0 (-14)
    Of 8 claim findings, 1 could not be checked because the source blocked the reviewer (claim_findings[5], Blockspot) and is left out, so 2 of 7 checked findings are disputed (about 29%). The disputes (claim_findings[2] and [3]) and the stale finding (claim_findings[1]) all stem from one error: the page gives the official pair a DEXT Score of 0/100, while DEXTools currently shows 76/100, and the summary wrongly calls that score an audit score. The page's other descriptive claims, its absence-of-adverse-events statement and its low-confidence Blockspot caveat held up, and the subject is still trading with no shutdown or exploit. Because the error is on the page's headline risk figure and a high-priority gap remains (no on-chain analysis of holders, mint/freeze authority, deployer or liquidity lock), the penalty sits at the upper end of the minor band.
    anchoranchored
    chain
    ●mainnet-betaslot 462,040,861
    sig
    5V4oJQjD9H8s…Hjq41GdEexplorer ↗
    hash
    EE2hiWZVHRJw…ngeJ1AVesha256 → base58
    verifying row…full verify ↗
    canonical bytes (1535 B) ▸
    {"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"f44a5098f49bc517a0805c67f414cb7b","band_override":null,"blocked_count":1,"decided_at":"2026-10-27T10:43:07.282Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.2857,"investigation_id":"7a9e565d-b19d-4921-9eed-3ebdf264b9cd","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":0,"page_slug":"texcat","prev_score":0,"reason":"Of 8 claim findings, 1 could not be checked because the source blocked the reviewer (claim_findings[5], Blockspot) and is left out, so 2 of 7 checked findings are disputed (about 29%). The disputes (claim_findings[2] and [3]) and the stale finding (claim_findings[1]) all stem from one error: the page gives the official pair a DEXT Score of 0/100, while DEXTools currently shows 76/100, and the summary wrongly calls that score an audit score. The page's other descriptive claims, its absence-of-adverse-events statement and its low-confidence Blockspot caveat held up, and the subject is still trading with no shutdown or exploit. Because the error is on the page's headline risk figure and a high-priority gap remains (no on-chain analysis of holders, mint/freeze authority, deployer or liquidity lock), the penalty sits at the upper end of the minor band.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":-14,"scored_claims":7,"sequence_num":4,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}
    Verify offline (run on your own machine)
    python -m src.verify_decision fdbce755-2064-4617-93be-037a29d5b8df
  5. #5reviewby reviewerreviewer
    2026-11-01 13:28:14Z
    Score: 0 → 0 (no score change)
    The descriptive claims about the site, token address, X account and the lookalike G99R pair check out, and the subject is still trading with no enforcement or exploit reporting found. The main defect is the DEXT Score. DEXTools now shows 75/100 for the official pair, not 0/100, and this appears in the summary, sections[1] and sections[3]. The volume figures are volatile and now lower than the page's range. The Blockspot ATH and the mint-as-pair-id stub could not be checked.
    anchoranchored
    chain
    ●mainnet-betaslot 464,109,019
    sig
    3YpZhfVYq2QG…ycGVa6ZDexplorer ↗
    hash
    HjU8o4RihPeL…yQ7sKszasha256 → base58
    verifying row…full verify ↗
    canonical bytes (1320 B) ▸
    {"actor":"reviewer","artifact_identity":"6b0b0562a1629566af18fe3f97c66ec3","blocked_count":1,"decided_at":"2026-11-01T13:28:14.480Z","decision":"review","disputed_pct":0.125,"findings_hash":"DiLdFqw8eW2nmhidEdZCe9eUXLKowr7BnR746A6hDQ53","investigation_id":"7a9e565d-b19d-4921-9eed-3ebdf264b9cd","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":0,"page_content_hash":"3ab08205080b9b8823dcc606183b0f8ccd7efd3db760e5ca15c11ee45341b03d","page_slug":"texcat","prev_score":0,"reason":"The descriptive claims about the site, token address, X account and the lookalike G99R pair check out, and the subject is still trading with no enforcement or exploit reporting found. The main defect is the DEXT Score. DEXTools now shows 75/100 for the official pair, not 0/100, and this appears in the summary, sections[1] and sections[3]. The volume figures are volatile and now lower than the page's range. The Blockspot ATH and the mint-as-pair-id stub could not be checked.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":0,"scored_claims":8,"sequence_num":5,"subject_status":"operating","subject_status_contradicts_page":false,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}
    Verify offline (run on your own machine)
    python -m src.verify_decision 8feb12f7-7c86-45ed-9326-1f180f9cafb6
  6. #6review reviseby judgejudge
    2026-11-01 13:28:14Z
    Score: 0 → 0 (-12)
    Of 9 claim findings, 1 was excluded because the source blocked the reviewer (claim_findings[7]). Of the remaining 8, one claim could not be found or checked (claim_findings[5]), giving 12.5% disputed or unverifiable, which is the minor band. Three further findings are stale and share one cause: the official pair's DEXT Score is now 75/100, not the 0/100 the page states in its summary and in two sections (claim_findings[1], [2], [3]). Counted as one defect, this keeps the page in the minor band. It is still a headline figure in the summary, so the penalty sits at the stricter end. The reviewer also gave a high-priority coverage gap on missing on-chain analysis (mint and freeze authority, holder concentration, liquidity lock). No omissions or status contradictions were found; the token is still trading with no exploit or enforcement reported.
    anchoranchored
    chain
    ●mainnet-betaslot 464,109,023
    sig
    2b13oXixXpTJ…D5tCW997explorer ↗
    hash
    6uWPuhVPrwRb…o4Bqhtzbsha256 → base58
    verifying row…full verify ↗
    canonical bytes (1527 B) ▸
    {"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"6b0b0562a1629566af18fe3f97c66ec3","band_override":null,"blocked_count":1,"decided_at":"2026-11-01T13:28:14.480Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.125,"investigation_id":"7a9e565d-b19d-4921-9eed-3ebdf264b9cd","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":0,"page_slug":"texcat","prev_score":0,"reason":"Of 9 claim findings, 1 was excluded because the source blocked the reviewer (claim_findings[7]). Of the remaining 8, one claim could not be found or checked (claim_findings[5]), giving 12.5% disputed or unverifiable, which is the minor band. Three further findings are stale and share one cause: the official pair's DEXT Score is now 75/100, not the 0/100 the page states in its summary and in two sections (claim_findings[1], [2], [3]). Counted as one defect, this keeps the page in the minor band. It is still a headline figure in the summary, so the penalty sits at the stricter end. The reviewer also gave a high-priority coverage gap on missing on-chain analysis (mint and freeze authority, holder concentration, liquidity lock). No omissions or status contradictions were found; the token is still trading with no exploit or enforcement reported.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":-12,"scored_claims":8,"sequence_num":6,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}
    Verify offline (run on your own machine)
    python -m src.verify_decision 8172e774-8e27-40b0-8ef1-4bc4e864cba0
  7. #7reviewby reviewerreviewer
    2026-11-01 13:41:33Z
    Score: 0 → 0 (no score change)
    Descriptive claims about the site, the duplicate G99R pair, honeypot/mintable flags and the absence of enforcement action hold up. The DEXT Score of 0/100 (also mislabeled an audit score in the summary) is outdated: the official pair now shows 75/100, still not DexTools verified. Volume has fallen below the quoted range. The Blockspot claims could not be checked.
    anchoranchored
    chain
    ●mainnet-betaslot 464,112,708
    sig
    4j9FcT8cByVB…EewZ2XrHexplorer ↗
    hash
    HMvhufoLDALC…faQ9pxyGsha256 → base58
    verifying row…full verify ↗
    canonical bytes (1203 B) ▸
    {"actor":"reviewer","artifact_identity":"dd09cbde9d5bd91b2601e665478602af","blocked_count":1,"decided_at":"2026-11-01T13:41:33.336Z","decision":"review","disputed_pct":0,"findings_hash":"G5EjdcLNXSvzffFVLiW1CGXK8HKUfEk9N5Q6VomQ9sUb","investigation_id":"7a9e565d-b19d-4921-9eed-3ebdf264b9cd","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":0,"page_content_hash":"3ab08205080b9b8823dcc606183b0f8ccd7efd3db760e5ca15c11ee45341b03d","page_slug":"texcat","prev_score":0,"reason":"Descriptive claims about the site, the duplicate G99R pair, honeypot/mintable flags and the absence of enforcement action hold up. The DEXT Score of 0/100 (also mislabeled an audit score in the summary) is outdated: the official pair now shows 75/100, still not DexTools verified. Volume has fallen below the quoted range. The Blockspot claims could not be checked.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":0,"scored_claims":8,"sequence_num":7,"subject_status":"operating","subject_status_contradicts_page":false,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}
    Verify offline (run on your own machine)
    python -m src.verify_decision 8c80c1f6-1ca7-441d-a4f2-281285346eea
  8. #8review reviseby judgejudge
    2026-11-01 13:41:33Z
    Score: 0 → 0 (-8)
    No claim was marked disputed or unverifiable (the one blocked Blockspot finding, claim_findings[7], is excluded), so the percentage alone falls in the approve band. We moved up one band because three findings (claim_findings[1], [2], [3]) show the page's DEXT Score of 0/100 is out of date (now 75/100) and the summary wrongly calls it an audit score, and because claim_findings[4] shows current volume is below the quoted range. The reviewer also flagged a high-priority gap: no holder concentration, mint/freeze authority or liquidity-lock analysis. The core descriptive claims, the honeypot and mintable flags, and the absence of enforcement action were confirmed, and the project is still operating, so the penalty is small.
    anchoranchored
    chain
    ●mainnet-betaslot 464,112,714
    sig
    r9uB5utUdWq3…zqNj1e3aexplorer ↗
    hash
    CPTobZJNZWiw…RsY1cwrwsha256 → base58
    verifying row…full verify ↗
    canonical bytes (2271 B) ▸
    {"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"dd09cbde9d5bd91b2601e665478602af","band_override":{"actual_delta":-8,"actual_verdict":"review_revise","disputed_pct":0,"expected_delta_range":[0,0],"expected_verdict":"review_approve","rationale":"No claim was marked disputed or unverifiable (the one blocked Blockspot finding, claim_findings[7], is excluded), so the percentage alone falls in the approve band. We moved up one band because three findings (claim_findings[1], [2], [3]) show the page's DEXT Score of 0/100 is out of date (now 75/100) and the summary wrongly calls it an audit score, and because claim_findings[4] shows current volume is below the quoted range. The reviewer also flagged a high-priority gap: no holder concentration, mint/freeze authority or liquidity-lock analysis. The core descriptive claims, the honeypot and mintable flags, and the absence of enforcement action were confirmed, and the project is still operating, so the penalty is small."},"blocked_count":1,"decided_at":"2026-11-01T13:41:33.336Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0,"investigation_id":"7a9e565d-b19d-4921-9eed-3ebdf264b9cd","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":0,"page_slug":"texcat","prev_score":0,"reason":"No claim was marked disputed or unverifiable (the one blocked Blockspot finding, claim_findings[7], is excluded), so the percentage alone falls in the approve band. We moved up one band because three findings (claim_findings[1], [2], [3]) show the page's DEXT Score of 0/100 is out of date (now 75/100) and the summary wrongly calls it an audit score, and because claim_findings[4] shows current volume is below the quoted range. The reviewer also flagged a high-priority gap: no holder concentration, mint/freeze authority or liquidity-lock analysis. The core descriptive claims, the honeypot and mintable flags, and the absence of enforcement action were confirmed, and the project is still operating, so the penalty is small.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":-8,"scored_claims":8,"sequence_num":8,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}
    Verify offline (run on your own machine)
    python -m src.verify_decision 50b87b64-8d54-409a-b7d7-515a17470082
  9. #9reviewby reviewerreviewer
    2026-11-01 21:35:55Z
    Score: 0 → 0 (no score change)
    The page is heavily hedged and discloses its own limits. DEXTools claims (score, holders, market cap, honeypot/mintable) match the fetched page. Blockspot and Solana Compass claims could not be read (403) and are not scored. No errors found; subject status could not be determined.
    anchoranchored
    chain
    ●mainnet-betaslot 464,245,578
    sig
    122rKEsoKvAe…La39k7gaexplorer ↗
    hash
    Ax2xWGoZgp7s…MZUpVGZ7sha256 → base58
    verifying row…full verify ↗
    canonical bytes (1117 B) ▸
    {"actor":"reviewer","artifact_identity":"cec45b74d28acbeb99856532ed3f9d1d","blocked_count":3,"decided_at":"2026-11-01T21:35:55.583Z","decision":"review","disputed_pct":0,"findings_hash":"6xw21QuCNP9XB61NAJH1yUX3kaaqdU5rqBMN7W5CCnU3","investigation_id":"7a9e565d-b19d-4921-9eed-3ebdf264b9cd","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":0,"page_content_hash":"41ab6021ad1df4d7f3254d2487004c985729e5d1f8117db5fb410ca22b27d370","page_slug":"texcat","prev_score":0,"reason":"The page is heavily hedged and discloses its own limits. DEXTools claims (score, holders, market cap, honeypot/mintable) match the fetched page. Blockspot and Solana Compass claims could not be read (403) and are not scored. No errors found; subject status could not be determined.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":0,"scored_claims":4,"sequence_num":9,"subject_status":"unknown","subject_status_contradicts_page":false,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}
    Verify offline (run on your own machine)
    python -m src.verify_decision 1d148293-7dbb-481b-90f6-99d9fb5c6b6f
  10. #10review approveby judgejudge
    2026-11-01 21:35:55Z
    Score: 0 → 0 (no score change)
    Of 7 claim findings, 3 could not be read because the sources refused access (claim_findings[3], [4], [5]) and are left out of the calculation. Of the remaining 4, none are disputed or unverifiable, so the disputed share is 0%. The DEXTools figures (claim_findings[0], [1], [2]) match the fetched pages, and the search found no enforcement action or shutdown (claim_findings[6], subject_status). The review lists a high-priority gap on holder concentration, mint/freeze authority and liquidity lock, but the page already states that this analysis could not be sourced and hedges the unreadable figures, so this is a suggestion for expansion and not a reason to revise. The share of claims that could not be read is large (3 of 7), which limits how far this review can vouch for the Blockspot and Solana Compass figures.
    anchoranchored
    chain
    ●mainnet-betaslot 464,245,583
    sig
    283unGxk7gKC…6JhpruQbexplorer ↗
    hash
    CsRq1CJL5Lvq…afjq5KXzsha256 → base58
    verifying row…full verify ↗
    canonical bytes (1489 B) ▸
    {"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"cec45b74d28acbeb99856532ed3f9d1d","band_override":null,"blocked_count":3,"decided_at":"2026-11-01T21:35:55.583Z","decision":"review_approve","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0,"investigation_id":"7a9e565d-b19d-4921-9eed-3ebdf264b9cd","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":0,"page_slug":"texcat","prev_score":0,"reason":"Of 7 claim findings, 3 could not be read because the sources refused access (claim_findings[3], [4], [5]) and are left out of the calculation. Of the remaining 4, none are disputed or unverifiable, so the disputed share is 0%. The DEXTools figures (claim_findings[0], [1], [2]) match the fetched pages, and the search found no enforcement action or shutdown (claim_findings[6], subject_status). The review lists a high-priority gap on holder concentration, mint/freeze authority and liquidity lock, but the page already states that this analysis could not be sourced and hedges the unreadable figures, so this is a suggestion for expansion and not a reason to revise. The share of claims that could not be read is large (3 of 7), which limits how far this review can vouch for the Blockspot and Solana Compass figures.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":0,"scored_claims":4,"sequence_num":10,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}
    Verify offline (run on your own machine)
    python -m src.verify_decision b4c4fa00-0cc6-45d2-9ebb-7a07e2c52013
How verification works. The “Row integrity” check above is computed in your browser — your machine recomputes the SHA-256 of the canonical bytes and compares against the stored hash. No avoid.net server can fake that check. The “full verify” link goes one level deeper: your browser fetches the on-chain transaction from a Solana RPC node and confirms the same hash is in the memo. If you don’t want to trust either avoid.net or the public RPC, run the CLI verifier on your own machine — python -m src.verify_decision <event_id>.