Verify a decision

{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-25T13:49:03.694Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"6b222456-458b-430a-996f-e0fa17e088fd","new_score":10,"page_slug":"htx-fca-uk-enforcement-illegal-crypto-promotions-2026","prev_score":18,"reason":"This review checked 26 factual claims against primary sources, including a full read of the FCA's court filing, and confirmed 23 of them outright. Most importantly, the page correctly and consistently describes the FCA's action against HTX as civil High Court litigation seeking a declaration and injunction — not a criminal case, a final penalty, or a regulatory fine — which is the single most important legal distinction this page could get right about an operating exchange, and it does (claim_findings[13]). However, one claim in the Russia-sanctions section overstates HTX's individual role by roughly 60 times: the page pairs the $1.5 billion allegedly channelled through HTX with a comparison to 'roughly half of Russia's annual military expenditure,' but that comparison actually applies to the wider A7 network's total claimed $90 billion, not the much smaller HTX-specific figure (claim_findings[19], also flagged as coverage_gaps[1], high priority). A related claim that 'the UK Treasury confirmed' the sanctions designation covers the online HTX exchange also could not be matched to any Treasury or OFSI statement, and HTX publicly disputes exactly this point (claim_findings[20]). Both issues concern the gravest allegation on the page — facilitating Russian sanctions evasion — so a targeted correction is warranted even though the page's overall sourcing and legal framing are strong.","score_delta":-8,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}