Verify a decision

{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-27T03:34:57.908Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"6b0b5653-4ab1-4c49-8ab8-cc603345bb23","new_score":0,"page_slug":"defi-governance-attack-wave-2026","prev_score":10,"reason":"All six individual attacks named on this page (BonkDAO, Term Finance, Token of Power, BarnBridge, Panther Protocol, Unicly) are independently confirmed by multiple outlets and are genuinely governance-mechanism exploits, not misclassified incidents. The problem is with the page's central thesis, not its facts: the 'connected wave' framing rests almost entirely on one vendor blog post, and independent reporting instead describes governance attacks as a rare, minority risk category rather than a coordinated campaign (claim_findings[0]). The page also folds Term Finance -- which happened 17 days after the vendor's own tracked window closed -- into that vendor's incident count without flagging the mismatch (claim_findings[6], the review's one fully disputed item), and presents a $22M-$30M loss range as if it were one measurement when it actually blends two different scopes of incidents (claim_findings[3]). Combined with a high-priority gap -- no on-chain addresses or transaction hashes anywhere on a platform built around on-chain-anchored evidence -- these overstate how settled the 'wave' framing is, even though the underlying incidents themselves are solid. This calls for revision of the framing and added on-chain sourcing rather than removal of the page.","score_delta":-10,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}