Verify a decision

{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-26T08:03:04.343Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"9ffcaedb-9f9b-46d6-a1c5-992c1f931865","new_score":0,"page_slug":"bridgelink-crossflow-relay-protocol-june-14-cross-chain-exploit-127m","prev_score":10,"reason":"Of 23 claims checked, 13 were confirmed, 2 partially supported, 1 disputed, and 7 unverifiable, putting disputed-plus-unverifiable at 8/23 (34.8%), which falls in the band requiring revision and a status change rather than approval. The central allegation (claim_findings[0]) — a $127 million exploit across three named protocols — rests on one uncorroborated vendor blog that several comprehensive, contemporaneous industry roundups covering smaller incidents never mention, and one aggregator's total for all June 2026 crypto losses is smaller than this single claimed event. The same source contains an unresolved internal contradiction the page did not flag: it says protocol names are withheld pending forensic completion while naming them, and describes compromising 2 of 9 validator keys as meeting a 5-of-9 signing threshold (claim_findings[9]). Separately, the page mischaracterizes a Cybernews '$300 million' article as a distinct fourth incident when it describes the same Kelp DAO/LayerZero event already cited two sentences earlier via Chainalysis (claim_findings[19]). The page's consistent hedging of these facts as 'alleged' is credited and keeps this well short of denial-level fabrication, but it does not offset the volume of unresolved and contradicted material in a page that names real market makers alongside three protocols with no independently verifiable prior existence.","score_delta":-25,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}