Verify a decision

{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-25T07:44:56.088Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"32a844a0-4b60-4c3c-9c8c-06ae37b7387e","new_score":40,"page_slug":"dtrinity-dlend","prev_score":52,"reason":"The page's core content — both security incidents (the $56,000 September 2025 exploit and the $257,000 March 2026 index-manipulation attack) — is strongly corroborated across multiple independent sources down to transaction hashes and figures, and the large majority of claims (33 of 48) were confirmed outright. However, the Security Audits section overstates the Cyberscope engagement: the page's own cited source states 'No Cyberscope Audit' was completed, describing only an automated scan, not a manual audit comparable to Halborn's (claim_findings[32]). The same section also gives an incorrect date for the Hats Finance audit competition (August 2025 instead of the primary source's June 16-July 4, 2025), repeated in both the Security Audits section and the timeline (claim_findings[33], [47]), and this error produces an internally inconsistent claim that the competition occurred 'after' the September 2025 exploit when it in fact preceded it under any version of the dates (claim_findings[36]). Additional partially-supported findings — a claim of uniform 100% loss-coverage across both incidents when that commitment is documented only for the March 2026 case (claim_findings[2]), and a 'chain-isolated reserves' framing for Katana that overstates architectural parity with Fraxtal/Ethereum (claim_findings[27], [41]) — add minor overstatement but do not change the substance of what happened. Disputed claims sit at 18.75%, squarely in the minor-issues band, and no coverage gap was flagged high priority.","score_delta":-12,"sequence_num":5,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}