Verify a decision

{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-27T01:07:35.338Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"7b941f3a-af49-4ab4-b71c-e93ece6f3cac","new_score":0,"page_slug":"gsd-cloud-lex-christopherson","prev_score":3,"reason":"The reviewer's own disputed_pct formula — (disputed + unverifiable) / total claims — puts this page at 19% (claim_findings[17], claim_findings[8], [14], [18], [23], [28]), squarely in the minor-issues band, and the core allegation (an alleged token dump and liquidity extraction by the founder days after a hackathon win) is corroborated across five independent outlets and consistently hedged as 'alleged,' including an accurate note that on-chain LP removal was never independently confirmed (claim_findings[13]). Against that, the page contains a real internal contradiction — it states the hackathon prize itself was ~$100,000 (claim_findings[1], [29]) while its own fund breakdown assigns only $50,000 to the hackathon grant and a separate $100,000 to a trading-contest reward (claim_findings[11]) — plus an uncited, apparently unit-confused RugCheck figure (claim_findings[17], flagged as a high-priority coverage gap), a citation that points to the wrong GitHub repo (claim_findings[24]), an archived OKX snapshot that predates the incident it is cited to support (claim_findings[21]), and Solyzer-sourced risk figures that no longer match the live source (claim_findings[16], [19]). These are citation-hygiene and internal-consistency defects on a page about a named individual, not evidence the core narrative is wrong, which is why the page is being sent back for revision rather than denied. The reviewer's own confidence (0.62) is moderate rather than high, which argues against a harsher penalty within the band.","score_delta":-12,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}