Verify a decision

{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-25T07:22:30.289Z","decision":"review_approve","investigation_id":"e554ffac-0e94-4306-af8b-f69c8a52c9d9","new_score":0,"page_slug":"eu-mica-regulator-impersonation-scam-wave","prev_score":0,"reason":"This page's central allegation — a coordinated impersonation scam wave targeting crypto users displaced by MiCA's July 1, 2026 deadline, with ESMA and France's AMF issuing formal warnings — is heavily corroborated, including by direct verification against ESMA's own official fraud-warning page rather than secondary paraphrase alone (claim_findings[3], [11], [13]). The regulatory scaffolding (deadline mechanics, the 323-authorized/1,700-unlicensed firm split, TRM Labs' figures, Poland's VASP count) is independently confirmed across primary and tier-1 sources (claim_findings[5]-[9], [22]). The only disputed item, claim_findings[25], is a three-week date discrepancy on a secondary timeline entry (Binance's Greek MiCA withdrawal); the underlying fact and the section-body statement of the same event are both confirmed accurate (claim_findings[21]), so this reads as a timeline transcription slip rather than a substantive error. The three partially-supported findings are each low materiality: the 'up to 10 million users' figure (claim_findings[10]) is appropriately hedged by the page itself and one of the page's own cited sources flags it as an unofficial media estimate — meaning the page's phrasing does not overstate what regulators actually published; the Belgium FSMA characterization (claim_findings[16]) overstates a secondary national regulator's role by degree, not kind; and 'MiCA-approved escrow' (claim_findings[17]) is an illustrative paraphrase presented as an example rather than a sourced quotation. The one unverifiable claim (claim_findings[15], an AMF quote) is plausible boilerplate that simply wasn't independently located, not contradicted. No link rot or staleness was found, and all four coverage gaps are medium or low priority — they point to opportunities for expansion (IOCs, primary-source citations) rather than defects requiring revision. With disputed_pct at 7.1%, no high-priority coverage gaps, and no disputed or unresolved finding touching the page's core claims, this is a genuinely well-verified page, not a clean percentage masking deeper problems.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}