Verify a decision

{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-25T03:25:11.568Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"07cb2698-dd92-4b8e-bde3-565f771a50fc","new_score":29,"page_slug":"risex","prev_score":42,"reason":"The page's central factual spine — the 673,011.56 USDC exploit amount, the August 3, 2026 date, the July 13 misconfiguration root cause, the 08:09 UTC patch, the absence of a completed audit, and the fee-funded compensation — is independently corroborated by SlowMist's tracker and directly fetched official/research sources, so the core incident narrative holds up (claim_findings[2],[3],[4],[5],[6]). However, a disputed finding shows the page overstates a June 2025 funding round as an '$8 million raise' when cited sources describe it as a $4M round (with $8M being a cumulative two-round total) and gets the date off by roughly a week (claim_findings[24]). More significantly, nearly every operational detail that casts RISEx's incident response favorably — its SEAL 911 engagement, its negotiation attempt, its claim that only one withdrawal occurred, and its explanation of why withdrawal throttles didn't trigger — rests solely on the implicated party's own unfetchable X post with no independent corroboration found (claim_findings[8],[9],[10],[12]), a gap the reviewer separately flagged as high-priority (coverage_gaps: 'independent security-firm confirmation'). A second high-priority gap notes the page omits any on-chain forensic detail (attacker address, transaction hash) for the drained funds. Additional partially-supported findings include a launch date that contradicts the page's own cited source (July 24 vs. July 20, claim_findings[26]) and an investor roster only fully corroborated by an uncited source (claim_findings[19]). These issues warrant correction and additional sourcing but do not undermine the page's core allegation.","score_delta":-13,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}