Verify a decision

{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-27T05:24:29.483Z","decision":"review_approve","investigation_id":"15cc426f-104d-48d3-a394-8ba269b3e8e5","new_score":92,"page_slug":"operation-atlantic-approval-phishing-network","prev_score":92,"reason":"This page's factual scaffolding held up under review. Of 38 claims examined, 31 were fully confirmed against primary law-enforcement releases, including the most consequential items: that 'Operation Atlantic' is a genuine law-enforcement designation independently corroborated by both the U.S. Secret Service and the UK National Crime Agency (claim_findings[0]), that no arrests or indictments were announced and no individual is named as charged anywhere on the page (claim_findings[8]), that the approval/permit-signature phishing mechanism is correctly described and kept separate from wallet-draining or seed-phrase theft (claim_findings[12]-[13]), and that the page's own $12M + $33M = $45M total reconciles exactly against the source (claim_findings[7]). Disputed_pct computes to 7.9% (2 disputed, 1 unverifiable, of 38), placing the page well inside the approve band even if the classification of borderline items were read more strictly. The two disputed claims (claim_findings[30]-[31]) concern incorrect launch dates for two older, unrelated operations the page references in a historical-context section, not disputes about Operation Atlantic's own facts or figures. Remaining issues -- a source-attribution slip on a $300M figure (claim_findings[28]), the omission of TRM Labs as a co-equal analytics partner, and a missing NCA primary citation -- are coverage and precision gaps, not defects in the page's core allegations, and do not change the outcome.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}