Verify a decision

{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-26T15:39:48.392Z","decision":"review_approve","investigation_id":"f560fedf-cb5b-4bac-8635-73da15489f52","new_score":30,"page_slug":"axiom-exchange-employee-insider-trading-scandal","prev_score":30,"reason":"Recomputing disputed_pct directly from the 39 individual claim findings (not the summary block, which undercounts by 4 confirmed items) gives (0 disputed + 1 unverifiable) / 39 = 2.6%, essentially matching the reviewer's own reported 2.9% -- both are deep inside the approve band regardless of which figure is used. The page consistently frames the insider-trading allegations as ZachXBT's claims rather than adjudicated fact (claim_findings[1], [7]), does not extend the allegation to co-founders, and accurately states no charges exist (claim_findings[3], [26], [27]). All three spot-checked verbatim quotes -- Bauer's wallet/ref-code/user-ID statement, Axiom's 'shocked and disappointed' statement, and ZachXBT's 'little to no monitoring' line -- are confirmed against primary or independently-reproduced sources (claim_findings[8], [15], [24]), not merely asserted. Two real but limited defects were found: a single unsourced claim in the page's own voice that Bauer 'was reported to have been suspended,' which the reviewer could not trace to any of four sources checked (claim_findings[25]) and should be corrected or removed since no such report appears to exist; and a cluster of five timeline entries using invented day-level precision (first-of-month dates) where sources only support month-level accuracy (claim_findings[30]-[34]), a formatting artifact rather than a factual dispute. The reviewer's flagged risk of readers conflating two distinct, separately-hedged Polymarket profit figures ($411k anonymous, $421k Bauer-linked-but-unconfirmed) is a legitimate clarity suggestion, not a sourcing failure (claim_findings[29]). The 'high' priority coverage gap on post-incident outcome is largely already addressed in the page's own text (it explicitly states no internal-investigation findings or compensation mechanism were disclosed); the gap mainly calls for restating that silence with a current timestamp, which is an expansion note rather than a structural omission, and per policy does not by itself warrant denying or downgrading an otherwise well-hedged page.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}