Verify a decision

{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-26T23:07:30.004Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"5723df5c-838e-43a2-a208-bda815ccd91c","new_score":16,"page_slug":"ostium-protocol","prev_score":28,"reason":"The reviewer's raw disputed rate is 9.3% (4 of 43 claims disputed or unverifiable), which sits inside the approve range on numbers alone. But the single disputed claim (claim_findings[3]) is the page's central causal finding — that the exploit was caused by a compromised oracle-signer private key — stated as unhedged fact in the summary, the lead section, and the timeline. Ostium's own post-mortem describes only compromised 'off-chain infrastructure' without naming a signer key, and one of the page's own four cited sources for this claim, DeFi Prime, explicitly says the exact mechanism is unconfirmed. A page overstating its own citation on its headline claim is a more serious defect than the disputed-claim count alone conveys. Separately, coverage_gaps[1] identifies a structural, not aspirational, omission: the page states a post-mortem 'had not been published as of late July 2026' even though its own bibliography includes sources archived after that post-mortem's publication on July 29-30, meaning documented remediation steps were available but never added. The other high-priority gap (cross-page consistency with a sibling page) is treated as clarification/cross-linking guidance rather than an independent defect in this page, since the $63M TVL figure it flags was itself verified as accurate. Together, the severity of the disputed core claim and the structural remediation omission justify treating this page as needing revision rather than outright approval, despite the low raw disputed percentage.","score_delta":-12,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}