Verify a decision

{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-27T03:48:41.285Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"1620215f-f081-449c-b8c1-deed771b06ff","new_score":0,"page_slug":"mica-transition-impersonation-scam-wave-2026","prev_score":2,"reason":"The review found 3 of 25 factual claims (12%) disputed, placing this page in the minor-issues range rather than a serious-issues or denial range. The page's central premise -- a genuine wave of impersonation scams tied to the MiCA transition -- held up: it is grounded in on-the-record statements from ESMA, AMF and AFM to the Financial Times, not a single unverified source (claim_findings[0], claim_findings[1]). However, the review identified a claim that named exchanges Coinbase, Kraken and OKX were 'reportedly impersonated' with no source, including the page's own citations, actually saying so (claim_findings[13]) -- a more serious defect than a routine factual slip because it attributes a specific circumstance to identifiable businesses without evidence. It also found a Binance user-count figure that contradicts Binance's own contemporaneous disclosure by over 100 million users, apparently confusing a market-size estimate with an actual user count (claim_findings[14]), and a timeline entry that attributes a statistic to a source article that does not contain it (claim_findings[24]). A regulator, Belgium's FSMA, is placed under an 'entities impersonated' heading even though the source cited for it describes an unrelated enforcement action (claim_findings[12]). These are sourcing and attribution problems that require correction, not evidence the page's core reporting is wrong, so a revision request is warranted rather than escalation to under-investigation status or denial.","score_delta":-12,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}