Verify a decision
Every moderation decision on AVOID.NET is anchored to the Solana blockchain. You don't have to trust us — you can verify cryptographically that we committed to a verdict at a specific moment and have not rewritten it.
How verification works
- We commit. When a moderator accepts/rejects a submission, we serialize the decision into deterministic UTF-8 bytes (
payload_canonical_string), hash it with SHA-256, encode the digest as base58, and write it to Solana inside an SPL Memo v2 transaction. - We store the bytes. The exact bytes we hashed are stored alongside the decision in our database. Anyone can read them and recompute the hash in any language.
- You compare three values. Database hash, your independently-recomputed hash, and the hash inside the on-chain memo. If all three match, the decision is authentic and timestamped.
The on-chain memo format is
AVOID.NET|v1|h:<b58-sha256>|d:<id>|t:<iso>Find a signature on any investigation page's decision log, or run python -m src.verify_decision --signature <sig> for a CLI check.
Decision
review_approve · OpenAI
- Sequence
- #4
- Score
- 48 → 48 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 449571020
- Off-chain at
- 2026-09-23T02:43:37.222Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- HWyZVDsGAdMVxjB5KtnGSVyvReWYpXfvKY8iGXg5SkH9
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1109 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"e401a900022e9ac915194f3a3f5098bb","band_override":null,"decided_at":"2026-09-23T02:43:36.500Z","decision":"review_approve","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0,"investigation_id":"79663a8f-6c02-43d8-a093-165a74f4295d","new_score":48,"page_slug":"openai","prev_score":48,"reason":"Of 11 claims checked, 10 were confirmed against independent tier-1/tier-2 sources and only 1 (claim_findings[5], the March 2023 data breach description) was found partially supported due to a minor omission of the card-expiration-date field, not a substantive inaccuracy. That puts disputed content at roughly 9% of claims, well within the approve range, and no claim was found to be false, stale, or backed by a dead link. The reviewer flagged only low/medium-priority coverage gaps (e.g., EU-wide GDPR exposure beyond Italy) that suggest expansion rather than correction, and reviewer confidence (0.82) supports treating this as a solid pass.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":4,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}