Verify a decision

{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-25T04:16:29.366Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"47f4611a-50df-41d6-bfed-730ee8e53928","new_score":0,"page_slug":"ben-bitboy-armstrong","prev_score":8,"reason":"The page's core factual scaffolding is well-supported: 26 of 35 claims were confirmed outright, zero were disputed, and the reviewer credits the page for correctly separating allegations, arrests, and unresolved litigation from adjudicated outcomes (e.g. distinguishing Kevin O'Leary, who was never charged, from his wife, who was charged and acquitted). On disputed_pct alone (5.71%) this page would clear the approve threshold. However, the review surfaced a real, unreconciled factual inconsistency at the center of the page's most legally consequential ongoing claim: the summary says Armstrong 'faces felony charges in Georgia' over the alleged threats to Judge Childs, while the dedicated section instead charges him under Florida Statute 836.10 -- and the stated 'five to ten years' penalty for that statute does not match the statute's actual second-degree-felony range of up to 15 years (claim_findings[3], claim_findings[26]). This is also flagged as a high-priority coverage gap. Because the page assigns trust-score weight partly on the basis of legal exposure, getting the charging jurisdiction and penalty exposure wrong on a live felony case is a more serious defect than an ordinary sourcing gap -- it misstates which state's justice system is acting against a named living person and could itself mislead readers trying to verify the case independently. The remaining partially-supported findings are lower-severity citation issues rather than factual errors: two direct quotes ('libelous' / '100% false') are verbatim-accurate but not found in the two sources cited for that passage (claim_findings[11]); an uncited $10,000 ZachXBT payment claim uses causal framing ('acknowledged paying... after research was published') that diverges from other reporting describing a lost public wager (claim_findings[16]); and a flat 'no settlement' claim about the FTX dismissal overstates the certainty of its own cited source, which hedges on a possible Binance-related settlement (claim_findings[14]). None of these rises to the level of a disputed claim, and the reviewer's overall confidence (0.75) supports a corrective rather than punitive response. The combination of a high-priority coverage gap on a core legal-exposure claim plus several sourcing-precision failures warrants a modest downward score adjustment and a revision requirement, not denial or delisting.","score_delta":-10,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}