Verify a decision

{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-25T14:20:24.316Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"55d1fe32-a031-48d1-80d0-26dae07d87a5","new_score":0,"page_slug":"movement-labs","prev_score":8,"reason":"Fact-checking confirmed 40 of 51 claims outright, including the entire Rentech/Web3Port contract chronology, the direct quotes, the DOJ grand jury investigation, and the bankruptcy filing's headline figures, largely against primary documents (claim_findings[9]-[18], [34]-[38]). The page also correctly treats the allegations against Manche, Thapaliya, and Law-Kun as unresolved allegations rather than proven wrongdoing (claim_findings[23], [27]), which matters most for a page like this. Set against that, four claims did not hold up: the timeline entry merging the Binance market-maker ban into the same December 10, 2024 date as the token dump actually occurred roughly three months later, distorting the sequence of events on a page centered on alleged misconduct (claim_findings[20]); a bankruptcy creditor is misidentified as the 'Delaware Division of Revenue' when the page's own cited source names the 'Division of Corporations' (claim_findings[40]); and two dates (the creditors' meeting and proof-of-claim deadline) are attributed to a crypto.news article that does not actually contain them, even though the dates themselves check out against an independent bankruptcy-docket source (claim_findings[43], [44]). That last pattern is a real sourcing-integrity problem, not a cosmetic one — a reader who checks the citation finds nothing there — but it is less serious than fabricating a source for information that turns out to be false, since here the underlying facts are accurate. The review also identified a well-documented related scandal (undisclosed adviser token allocations, including a roughly $50 million dispute involving Sam Thapaliya) that is missing from the page's dedicated section on Thapaliya's role, and flagged as high priority. Given the mix of a chronology error on a core allegation, a citation that contradicts itself, twice-repeated fabricated sourcing on facts that are otherwise accurate, and a high-priority gap bearing directly on Thapaliya's incentives, the page needs correction rather than outright rejection.","score_delta":-10,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}