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 · OpenAI
- Sequence
- #2
- Score
- 48 → 38 (-10)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 449513445
- Off-chain at
- 2026-09-22T22:28:22.723Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- F3QeNetSCQ3M8yR7dgXxTQ62QhNmVP88mz24LfPnF58z
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (2164 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"935bd9031b3e2543e7f9091184f3b1a3","band_override":{"actual_delta":-10,"actual_verdict":"review_revise","disputed_pct":0,"expected_delta_range":[0,0],"expected_verdict":"review_approve","rationale":"Of 12 individually checked claims, 11 were confirmed accurate and only 1 was found stale (claim_findings[4]), putting disputed content at roughly 8% of reviewed claims. That single stale item is not trivial, though: the page's Regulatory Actions section describes Italy's €15 million Garante fine against OpenAI as a live, under-appeal liability, but a Rome court annulled the fine on jurisdictional grounds in March 2026, months before this review. The reviewer also flagged this as a high-priority coverage gap (coverage_gaps[0]), which under our standards is enough to warrant a revision even though the overall disputed rate is low. No other section, including the wrongful-death suits, the Musk verdict, the restructuring MOU, or the crypto-adjacent claims, was disputed."},"decided_at":"2026-09-22T22:28:22.290Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0,"investigation_id":"79663a8f-6c02-43d8-a093-165a74f4295d","new_score":38,"page_slug":"openai","prev_score":48,"reason":"Of 12 individually checked claims, 11 were confirmed accurate and only 1 was found stale (claim_findings[4]), putting disputed content at roughly 8% of reviewed claims. That single stale item is not trivial, though: the page's Regulatory Actions section describes Italy's €15 million Garante fine against OpenAI as a live, under-appeal liability, but a Rome court annulled the fine on jurisdictional grounds in March 2026, months before this review. The reviewer also flagged this as a high-priority coverage gap (coverage_gaps[0]), which under our standards is enough to warrant a revision even though the overall disputed rate is low. No other section, including the wrongful-death suits, the Musk verdict, the restructuring MOU, or the crypto-adjacent claims, was disputed.","score_delta":-10,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}