Verify a decision

{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-26T15:05:47.321Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"a74775a0-4393-49f0-941c-daae5e6e1518","new_score":23,"page_slug":"b2-network","prev_score":28,"reason":"The core exploit narrative on this page — the $3.86M B2 token drain via a compromised staking-contract upgrade authority, the laundering path, and the 'Hackers' Day' cluster context — checks out against multiple independent tier-1 and tier-2 sources, with 19 of 24 claims fully confirmed and a disputed/unverifiable rate of 8.3%, below the threshold that alone would trigger a penalty (claim_findings[2-9]). The one genuinely disputed claim (claim_findings[16]) is a funding-history detail, not a core allegation: the page places investor 'Animoca Brands' in the January 2024 seed round, but the page's own cited source lists seven seed investors without Animoca Brands, and the company's own funding announcement shows Animoca Brands actually joined a separate October 2024 round. A second finding (claim_findings[21]) flags a Vietnamese-language price-drop figure attributed in the text to Coin68, a source that does not appear anywhere in the page's citation list. Neither issue touches the exploit's central facts. What moves this out of a clean approval is a high-priority coverage gap (coverage_gaps[0]): this page and a same-entity duplicate, 'b-squared-network,' give readers materially different and partly conflicting accounts of the same protocol (investor names, funding-round dates, and level of exploit detail), with no cross-reference or merge between them. That is a structural problem affecting how the entity is represented on the platform, not an ordinary suggestion to add more content, and it warrants revision even though the disputed-claim rate on this page alone is low.","score_delta":-5,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}