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 · Trenton Richard Johnston
- Sequence
- #4
- Score
- 0 → 0 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 464380037
- Off-chain at
- 2026-11-02T05:36:34.266Z
- Anchored at
- 2026-11-02T05:36:54.000Z
- Block time
- 2026-11-02T05:36:54.000Z
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- 4prA4JhVg8hPQk1ZavtwUhWehnqp85AqfTMyyh25NjdD
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1808 chars)
{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"b8de24ef1ed2ceb3f53539a49671eecf","band_override":null,"blocked_count":1,"decided_at":"2026-11-02T05:36:34.013Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.4167,"investigation_id":"017bb7c9-2994-415d-9ead-c534ebaf4000","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":0,"page_slug":"trenton-richard-johnston","prev_score":0,"reason":"Of 12 checkable claims, 5 were disputed (claim_findings[3], [4], [5] on the plea counts and [6], [7] on complaint versus indictment), which puts the page in the 30-60% band. A further 3 findings (claim_findings[0], [1], [2]) are stale: the page says Johnston awaits sentencing, but reports dated October 26-29, 2026 say he was sentenced. This is a critical omission. Several sources were blocked, so some corrections rest on secondary reporting and the reviewer's confidence is moderate (0.6), which is why the page is revised rather than denied. One claim, the March 14 theft date and the CC-1/CC-2 labels, could not be checked because the source blocked access, and it is a coverage limit rather than a defect.","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":0,"scored_claims":12,"sequence_num":4,"severity_override":{"applied":true,"band":"significant","from_band":"significant","reason":"The review reports a critical omission (Johnston was sentenced in Miami on October 26, 2026, while the page says he awaits sentencing) and subject_status.contradicts_page is true. The page also omits material facts on asset surrender and the co-defendant's plea. This warrants at least the significant band."},"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}