Verify a decision

{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-06-15T18:24:08.163Z","decision":"review_approve","investigation_id":"81f77d2a-2c49-4e61-9298-d94c9922ddbc","new_score":52,"page_slug":"agave","prev_score":18,"reason":"The reviewer confirmed 11 of 13 claims outright and partially supported the remaining 2 — both minor (an imprecise launch date in the timeline, and a nuance around hack-victim vs. governance-token redemption). Disputed claims stand at 0%. The two primary incidents (claim_findings[2] and claim_findings[5]) are both attribution type (b) 'suffered': Agave was exploited by an external attacker through a chain-level token behaviour it did not introduce, and its subsequent closure was an orderly wind-down with no evidence of fraudulent intent. Under the platform's fraud-likelihood scoring rubric, CRITICAL (0–19) is reserved for entities whose own conduct constitutes confirmed fraud, exit scams, or Ponzi schemes. Placing a hack victim at score 18 violates the anti-conflation rule. The reviewer's recommended score of 52 (CAUTIONARY) correctly reflects that the protocol is defunct, users received no hack restitution, and there is a minor unresolved audit-scope gap — without over-penalising for harm the entity suffered rather than caused. A positive delta of +34 is applied to correct this mis-classification.","score_delta":34,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}