Verify a decision

{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-25T13:41:22.070Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"027efe27-8bb6-4acc-8596-12b3ac306d6a","new_score":0,"page_slug":"debank-auction","prev_score":2,"reason":"An independent fact-check disputed or could not verify 9 of 36 claims on this page (25%), but none of those items touch the page's central allegation — that debank.auction is a malicious typosquatting domain using hidden, AI-targeted prompt injection — which remains fully confirmed against the primary Zscaler research (claim_findings[12], [13], [16], [17], [20]). Instead, the disputed claims cluster around a recurring sourcing problem: a Hacker News article cited as coverage of this campaign that actually predates it and covers an unrelated topic (claim_findings[27], [31]), a Group-IB source cited to support a DeBank-specific claim it never makes (claim_findings[24]), and an 'updated August 5' date that appears to conflate an archive snapshot with an actual editorial revision (claim_findings[22], [35]), which also leaves a related claim unverifiable (claim_findings[29]). One minor background fact — DeBank supporting '100+' chains versus independently reported '~70+' — is also disputed (claim_findings[4]). These are citation-hygiene failures layered on top of solid core reporting, not evidence the underlying threat account is wrong. Combined with two high-priority coverage gaps (independent verification of the domain's current status, and re-verification of the mismatched citations), this warrants a moderate score reduction and a revision cycle rather than approval or denial.","score_delta":-12,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}