Verify a decision

{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-25T04:06:36.562Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"fdf124d2-1bbf-496e-bfd8-259013dd6bbf","new_score":20,"page_slug":"hinkal-protocol","prev_score":28,"reason":"The page's central narrative -- the July 2026 nullifier-binding exploit, the attacker's address, the Tornado Cash/THORChain laundering path, the contract pause, and the reimbursement pledge -- is independently corroborated with zero disputed claims (disputed_pct 0.05). However, the review found four framing and sourcing problems that a raw disputed-claim count does not capture: the page states the loss as a flat '$820,000' throughout even though its own cited sources report a real spread (claim_findings[7]: $772K-$830K, with one source explicitly noting $797K as a downward revision of the $820K figure the page uses); a '$500 million in historical private transaction volume' figure is not supported by any of the three sources cited for it and traces only to the protocol's own marketing copy (claim_findings[2]); the April 2024 raise is labeled a 'seed round' though the issuer calls it a 'strategic funding round,' and an earlier, larger $4.1M seed round from November 2023 is omitted entirely (claim_findings[3]); and the 'Protocol Response' section's 'as of August 20, 2026' status claim appears to predate a July 20, 2026 reimbursement-process announcement identified by the reviewer, albeit from a single source at moderate confidence (claim_findings[16], coverage_gaps[0], flagged high priority). Under the review rubric, a high-priority coverage gap warrants a revise verdict even when disputed_pct alone sits in the approve band, and that is the deciding factor here.","score_delta":-8,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}