Verify a decision

{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-26T11:15:53.221Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"c61799b4-62c8-490b-b7ea-ee281ee5113f","new_score":54,"page_slug":"lcx","prev_score":62,"reason":"The page's disputed_pct is 5.3% (1 unverifiable claim out of 19; zero disputed), which on its own would fall in the approve band, and the core factual record — the regulator, the statute, the hack amount, the fund-freeze mechanics, and the reimbursement — all checked out against independent sources (claim_findings[0], [1], [5], [13], [14]). Two high-priority coverage gaps push this into revise territory instead: an unsourced summary claim that researcher ZachXBT has flagged LCX, for which the reviewer found no corroborating source after a targeted search (claim_findings[6]), and a licensing timeline that stops at the February 2025 MiCA filing without noting that as of mid-2026 the license remains pending past the EEA's July 2026 transitional deadline (claim_findings[18]). Neither issue rises to a contradicted claim, but both concern a named third party's reputation and the currency of a regulated exchange's licensing status, which the disputed-claims percentage alone does not capture. The page should be revised to either source or remove the ZachXBT line and to add a current-status note on the MiCA application before this is reconsidered for approval.","score_delta":-8,"sequence_num":5,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}