Verify a decision

{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-26T10:06:48.535Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"db5d0bd1-e00a-4022-a5f9-e80dacf78503","new_score":0,"page_slug":"patrick-steven-yaroch-fbi-agent-crypto-theft","prev_score":2,"reason":"Independently verified against the reviewer's own tally (43 confirmed, 4 partially_supported, 1 disputed, 2 unverifiable, 1 stale, 1 link_rot across 52 claims), disputed_pct works out to 3/52 = 5.8%, which sits in the approve band by the numbers alone. But the arithmetic hides the three most consequential findings, since 'stale', 'link_rot' and 'partially_supported' are excluded from the metric by design. claim_findings[39] shows the page telling readers Yaroch 'was held in custody in Alexandria, Virginia, while the case proceeded' when reporting from a detention hearing days later indicates he was released on secured bond with home confinement -- a live factual error about a named individual's current liberty that the page has not corrected in three weeks. claim_findings[18] shows the court-filing citation backing the page's two 'critical'-severity sections resolves to an unrelated 2011 Nebraska case, not the Yaroch complaint; the underlying facts remain corroborated by independent news reporting cited alongside it, so this is a sourcing-integrity defect rather than misinformation, but it leaves the primary legal document unverifiable through the page as published. claim_findings[25] shows the page asserting as flat fact that the case is 'a straightforward case of financial self-enrichment ... rather than any whistle-blower or authorized action' -- a conclusion about motive and guilt stated without hedging while charges are pending, which the reviewer correctly flags as inconsistent with presumption-of-innocence norms for a named, still-uncharged-by-indictment individual. Two coverage gaps are marked high priority (current custody/case status; the broken citation), which on their own terms warrant pushing this into revise rather than approve, and the reviewer's stated confidence (0.75) does not support treating these as edge-case nitpicks. Weighed against that: the reviewer confirms every quotation checked appears in independent reporting of the affidavit, a clean result worth noting explicitly given other pages reviewed this run carried invented quotes; the Russia attribution and the FBI's institutional statement are both properly sourced and hedged rather than overstated; and the disputed age figure (claim_findings[0], 37 vs. a consistently reported 41) is a low-stakes, easily-corrected detail. None of this rises to a disputed core allegation -- the theft amount, method, self-disclosure, arrest, and charges are all independently confirmed -- so denial or an under_investigation/delisting status is not warranted. The page needs a substantive but limited revision, not removal from the index.","score_delta":-12,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}