Verify a decision

{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-25T03:11:22.447Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"d2e83b50-26b3-4b94-bf76-3e25e8acd59c","new_score":0,"page_slug":"crypto-whale-25-6m-repeat-phishing-drain-august-2026","prev_score":0,"reason":"Of 27 factual claims checked against independent reporting, 22 were confirmed, 2 partially supported, 2 unverifiable (both absence-of-evidence claims), and 1 disputed — an 11% dispute rate. The disputed item, claim_findings[4], carries more weight than its 1-in-27 share suggests: it is the page's only concrete on-chain wallet attribution, naming address 0x8fEB...F95Ae as the 2026 attacker's wallet. Two outlets covering the same event (CryptoRank, BitcoinWorld) instead describe that same address as belonging to the repeatedly-targeted victim, and the page presents its own source's framing as settled without noting the conflict. A high-priority coverage gap in the review points to the same root cause — no primary on-chain reference (Etherscan, Arkham, or the original Specter post) is cited anywhere on the page to resolve which framing is correct. Because address attributions on a risk-intelligence platform can be mechanically consumed and propagated by exchanges or blocklisting tools, an unresolved victim-vs-attacker mix-up carries a different, higher-stakes risk profile than a wrong date or figure, which is why this page requires revision rather than approval even though every other major claim — all dollar amounts, dates, the 2023 incident, and the July 2024 restitution — was strongly corroborated across multiple independent outlets.","score_delta":-14,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}