Verify a decision

{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-25T22:28:55.005Z","decision":"review_approve","investigation_id":"21a815b4-00dc-4849-a54f-c2628c6019ec","new_score":2,"page_slug":"huang-xingshan","prev_score":2,"reason":"Of 17 factual claims checked, 14 were confirmed, 2 were partially supported, and 1 was disputed, putting the disputed rate at about 5.9% (unverifiable claims are counted with disputed under the review methodology; partially supported claims are not) — well within the range where a page is approved. The single disputed item (claim_findings[13]) is a background statistic about nationwide crypto-fraud losses that the page itself misquotes from its own cited source, not a claim about Huang Xingshan or the criminal case against him. The core allegations — his identity, the April 2026 DOJ wire fraud charge, his alleged role at the Shunda Park compound, its seizure, his move to Cambodia, and his current custody status — are corroborated by multiple independent outlets reporting on the same federal complaint (claim_findings[0]-[9], [16]). The page also correctly frames allegations as prosecutors' claims rather than proven fact, and anchors Huang's identity to a specific co-defendant, compound, and set of dates rather than the name alone, which meaningfully reduces the risk of confusing him with an unrelated person sharing a common name. The identified gaps — missing docket number, no independent reporting beyond the DOJ press materials, no statement from the defense — are rated medium or low priority by the reviewer, not high, so under the review criteria they call for future expansion rather than a hold on the page.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}