Verify a decision

{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-27T03:17:30.077Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"10136f6a-2bee-480a-8bf6-009e08eb7474","new_score":0,"page_slug":"ofac-operation-economic-outcast-iran-digital-assets-sectoral-sanctions-august-2026","prev_score":12,"reason":"I independently counted the review's claim_findings array and found 35 entries (29 confirmed, 5 partially_supported, 1 disputed, 0 unverifiable/stale/link_rot), not the 36 claims and 30 confirmed the summary block reports. One claim the summary counts is not present in the array and cannot be inspected, so a small piece of this review's coverage is simply missing rather than good or bad. Either way disputed_pct rounds to about 3% (1/35 or 1/36), which alone sits in the approve band. However, the review also logged a high-priority coverage gap: the page frames Executive Order 13902 as 'the legal vehicle' for the entire 24 August 2026 action, but the reviewer verified against the Treasury press release that Ivan Obukhov and Mohammad Ahmed Suhil Fattouh were actually designated under the terrorism-financing authority (E.O. 13224), and the Mabna Institute cyber actors plus Arman Kahzadian under the cyber-sanctions authority (E.O. 13694) (claim_findings[3], [14], [15], [16]). Because those findings were coded partially_supported rather than disputed, this material framing problem does not register in disputed_pct at all, even though it understates the legal severity attached to some of the page's most prominent crypto-linked designees. The review's decision rules direct that a high-priority coverage gap should push toward review_revise even where disputed_pct is low, and I've applied that instruction here rather than letting a technically-low disputed_pct default to approval of a page with this specific unaddressed defect. Compounding this, the review's lone disputed finding is a quotation attributed to law firm Foley Hoag ('inverts the normal sequence') that the reviewer confirmed, via direct fetch and targeted search of the cited post, does not appear anywhere in that source (claim_findings[7]) — a fabricated attribution rather than a wrong figure. A second, related problem was found in a partially_supported finding: a 'stablecoins... circumvents SWIFT' characterization attributed to a Chainalysis post that the reviewer could not find in that post (claim_findings[26]). Weighed against this, the review's core factual backbone — designee identities, roles and locations, the ~60-designee count, the 30 wallet addresses, $16.8M and $202,662 figures, the 92% concentration figure, DOJ-sourced Mabna Institute statistics, the 7 August Shelbit/Aban Tether action, and Nobitex background — was independently corroborated against Treasury and DOJ primary sources. Two citations returned 403/429 on automated fetch, but the reviewer corroborated the underlying claims through independent alternate sources rather than simply asserting they held up, which is the correct way to avoid over-penalizing likely bot-blocking as link rot. On balance, this is a page with a sound factual core undermined by an unaddressed legal-authority framing gap on its most serious designations and two separate instances of unsupported attributions to named professional sources — enough to require revision, not enough, at ~3% disputed content and 0.75 reviewer confidence, to escalate further.","score_delta":-15,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}