Verify a decision

{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-26T14:08:44.977Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"4bb58024-57a7-40e3-a513-fb70b841b377","new_score":27,"page_slug":"resupplyfi","prev_score":32,"reason":"The page's core narrative -- the exploit mechanism, loss figures, and recovery/bad-debt repayment -- checks out in unusual detail and reconciles arithmetically against its own citations (claim_findings[29], [30], [31]), and only 3 of 49 claims are disputed or unverifiable (6.1%), which sits well inside the approve range on claim accuracy alone. The page is nonetheless being sent back for revision because of a specific, high-priority coverage gap: it omits a March 2026 Singapore court order in a defamation/harassment dispute involving Wang Yishi, a person the page already quotes by name criticizing the recovery plan (coverage_gaps, high priority) -- an omission about someone already featured on the page, not merely a missing topic area. Secondary issues support a light rather than zero penalty: a timeline entry misdates a Tornado Cash laundering tranche by roughly three months (claim_findings[46]), two timeline dates show invented day-level precision not supported by their own cited sources (claim_findings[45], [47]), the summary states a $4,000 flash-loan figure from a low-credibility outlet without reconciling a conflicting $200,000 figure from a higher-credibility source (claim_findings[10]), and the citation list has entries cited in the body but missing from the source list and vice versa, including one case where a quote's actual origin outlet is absent from its section's own citation list. None of these touch the page's central factual claims about the exploit or the loss/recovery amounts.","score_delta":-5,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}