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_revise · Jiang Wen Jie
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 2 → 0 (-12)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443517920
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-25T22:39:20.056Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 5B2m6N3Meo7jz5898nnPKCsA8RwMqHvVZh2Cyf3b2gJP
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (2248 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-25T22:39:19.882Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"6cd96f54-27d5-462b-845c-2f5abd046709","new_score":0,"page_slug":"jiang-wen-jie","prev_score":2,"reason":"Of 22 fact-checked claims, 17 were confirmed, 1 was disputed, and 2 were unverifiable, putting disputed_pct at 13.6% (1 partially_supported and 1 stale finding are correctly excluded from that ratio per the review methodology). That places the page in the minor-issues band, but two of the flagged items carry more weight than a bare percentage suggests. claim_findings[12] found that the Protos article cited to support the Shunda Park compound-operations section actually describes a different, much larger compound (KK Park) and never mentions Shunda Park -- a real citation defect, even though the underlying prose about Shunda Park is independently corroborated elsewhere. claim_findings[3] found the page states flatly that Jiang 'remains in Thai custody' as of August 2026, but the reviewer could only verify custody through roughly April-May 2026; no source was found confirming or contradicting his status since, so that sentence is more confident than the evidence supports for a living, unconvicted individual. Separately, claim_findings[18] flags that the page's '$64 billion annual profit' figure is a 2023-vintage estimate now understated against a February 2026 UN estimate ($88-114 billion) that predates the page's own August 2026 sourcing, so a more current figure was reasonably available. On the identity side, the reviewer found the page adequately pins Jiang Wen Jie to this specific case (alias 'Jiang Nan,' named co-defendant, specific compound, charge date) despite unrelated namesakes existing, which mitigates the main harm risk for a page naming a charged-but-unconvicted person. None of the five coverage gaps were flagged high priority, and reviewer confidence (0.72) is moderate rather than low, so no additional band movement is warranted, but the currency and citation issues justify a delta toward the firmer end of the minor-issues range rather than the floor.","score_delta":-12,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}