Verify a decision

{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-25T13:27:22.827Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"1f1b480b-ecf3-4765-aada-13a43c6d4a2f","new_score":0,"page_slug":"broox-bauer-axiom-insider-trading-ring","prev_score":6,"reason":"Independent recount of the reviewer's tally confirms disputed_pct at 8.9% (5 of 56 claims) — inside the approval range on the numbers alone — and the central accusation, that Bauer misused Axiom's internal dashboard to extract and share wallet data, is solidly corroborated by tier-1 reporting and ZachXBT's own primary posts. However, two errors are serious enough to require revision rather than approval. The Polymarket section and its duplicate timeline entry (claim_findings disputed items on sections[4] and timeline[7]) state that bettor wallets were 'connected to Bauer or his associates' — a link none of the cited sources support, and one a same-day CoinDesk follow-up says cannot be established without exchange cooperation, turning an explicitly unattributable event into an attributed one against a person facing no charges. Separately, the page tells readers the party that retained ZachXBT 'was not disclosed' (claim_findings on sections[7]) while a source cited elsewhere on the same page quotes him saying Axiom itself retained him, concealing a fact relevant to judging the investigation's independence. Both issues are also flagged by the reviewer as high-priority coverage gaps, alongside a title ('ring') that outruns the properly hedged body text, and together they warrant a modest downgrade and required corrections even though the well-supported core allegation against Bauer is not in doubt.","score_delta":-10,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}