Verify a decision

{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-27T10:26:14.670Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"d8ae137c-0798-405d-93fa-cbfb6f83f80e","new_score":37,"page_slug":"afi-protocol","prev_score":52,"reason":"Independent computation from claim_findings confirms the reviewer's own summary: 3 disputed and 2 unverifiable out of 33 claims yields a disputed_pct of 15.15%, placing this page in the 10-30% band, which calls for review_revise with no change to publication status. Within that band, two findings push the penalty toward the top of the allowed range. First, claim_findings[12] and claim_findings[26] show the page asserting AFI's December 2025 vault launch was backed by '$700 million in verified RWA reserves' in two separate sections, while the page's own timeline entry for the same event states $80 million — a figure corroborated by two independent outside sources. This is a self-contradiction on the exact number a reader would use to judge whether the product is adequately backed. Second, claim_findings[21] disputes the page's claim that AFI 'does not publicly identify its founding team,' noting that Chaos Labs, a named and established risk-management firm, publicly identifies itself as AFI's creator; the page omits this and treats an unfounded opacity concern as a red flag. Both issues are also logged as high-priority coverage gaps. Everything else on the page holds up well: the $480K afiUSD exploit narrative (claim_findings[3]-[10]) is corroborated across two outlets, two audit dates were checked against source and confirmed genuine rather than placeholders, and the two unverifiable findings stem from a source behind a bot-check wall rather than any identified inaccuracy.","score_delta":-15,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}