Verify a decision

{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-25T18:58:37.835Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"640a3b11-d577-4a31-a831-53ed8823ab7a","new_score":26,"page_slug":"coinsbuy","prev_score":38,"reason":"The reviewer's own claim_findings array holds 18 entries, not the 17 reported in its summary block; applying the spec formula (disputed + unverifiable) / total to the array gives a disputed rate of 22.2%, higher than the file's stated 18% and in the upper half of the minor-issues band. The core factual narrative of the August 9, 2026 hack — the ~$8.07M loss, wallet counts, laundering route through FixedFloat/ChangeNOW/BingX to Monero, and the company's own statement — is well corroborated across multiple independently fetched outlets (claim_findings[4], [6]–[10]), and the page appropriately treats this as a security incident rather than alleging fraud, which the reviewer specifically notes as an example of restraint. Weighing against that, claim_findings[15] (disputed) found that the page's Cryptwerk '1.4/5' rating is described as reflecting 'limited public feedback,' when the cited page in fact shows zero reviews behind that score — turning an empty placeholder into apparent negative sentiment about an operating company, which is a more serious defect than an ordinary wrong figure even though it is only one of eighteen claims. claim_findings[12] (unverifiable) cites general business-data aggregators (Dun & Bradstreet, PitchBook) to support a claim about the absence of regulatory enforcement action, sources that cannot actually confirm or deny regulatory status either way. Two of the three unverifiable findings (claim_findings[3] and [16]) are appropriately hedged absence/interpretive statements rather than real defects, which keeps the substantive defect rate lower than the raw percentage suggests and supports revision rather than denial.","score_delta":-12,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}