Verify a decision

{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-25T02:46:33.566Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"c9315989-c7a8-474a-97ba-e9c46606cf83","new_score":14,"page_slug":"bybit-v-dprk-lazarus-group-1-5b-hack-civil-lawsuit-august-2026","prev_score":20,"reason":"Recomputing disputed_pct as (disputed + unverifiable) / total_claims over the authoritative 14-entry claim_findings array gives 3/14 = 0.21, consistent with the reviewer's reported 0.23 and falling within the 10%-30% band. This places the page in review_revise territory, though at the low end: zero claims were actually found disputed or contradicted by more credible reporting, and the elevated pct is driven entirely by three unverifiable items (claim_findings[8], [12], [13]). Of those, two (claim_findings[8], [12]) were marked unverifiable primarily because a cited source returned an HTTP 429 rate-limit during the reviewer's fetch attempt rather than because the claim itself is doubtful -- the underlying legal framework and 'landmark' characterization are described as plausible and consistent with broader coverage. The third (claim_findings[13], the Zhou quote paraphrase) reflects genuine absence of a verbatim source match rather than a fetch failure, and so carries slightly more weight. Combined with three partially_supported findings that reflect citation-support gaps rather than factual errors (a source doesn't fully back a detail that is otherwise accurate per cross-referencing) and one minor numeric slip (52 vs. 50 FBI-listed addresses in claim_findings[3]), the page merits a modest revise-level penalty rather than the top of the band, given no link rot, no staleness, and no high-priority coverage gaps were identified.","score_delta":-6,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}