Verify a decision

{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-26T11:05:00.712Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"8e56f9fb-fabd-445a-85fa-6b1a284eb4e8","new_score":6,"page_slug":"adform-ad-tech-supply-chain-wallet-swap-attack","prev_score":20,"reason":"This page's disputed rate is 20% (4 of 30 claims), which falls in the review_revise range, but the disputed claims are not scattered minor errors -- they are four restatements of a single central claim (claim_findings[3], [16], [17], [28]) that the compromise may have run 'at least a week,' and Adform's own dated incident update, which the page never cites, puts the real window at about 19.5 hours. Three additional claims (claim_findings[12], [25], [29]) are marked stale for the same underlying reason: the page relies on Adform's early statements about data exfiltration and regulatory notification without incorporating the company's own August 5 update, which narrows the exfiltration risk to certain pages and names the Danish Data Protection Authority as a notified regulator. The reviewer's single high-priority coverage gap points to this same missing source, so the page's biggest problem is a citation gap rather than fabricated or contradicted-by-outsiders content. The review also found the page erring in both directions -- overstating confirmed exposure in one figure (claim_findings[1]) while omitting a researcher's criticism that softens the company's image (a coverage gap) -- so there is no one-sided bias, and 18 of 30 claims were fully confirmed with correct framing of Adform as the compromised party rather than a negligent actor (claim_findings[6]).","score_delta":-14,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}