Verify a decision

{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-26T12:33:55.138Z","decision":"review_approve","investigation_id":"6e0c4cda-09c0-4545-bb74-9340c7176469","new_score":0,"page_slug":"h1-2026-bridge-hack-cluster-same-day-35-6m-attack-wave-july-22-23","prev_score":0,"reason":"Independent verification confirms disputed_pct = (1 disputed + 1 unverifiable) / 25 = 8%, which falls in the 0-10% approve band. The page's central factual claims hold up: the three core incidents (AFX Trade $24.15M, Verus-Ethereum $7.54M, B² Network $3.86M) are real, correctly dated, mutually distinct, and sum correctly to ~$35.55M (claim_findings[0]), and a related fourth incident (Balance/42DAO) was correctly identified as excluded from that total rather than folded in (claim_findings[12]). The broader H1/July aggregate statistics cited on the page all check out arithmetically against independent reporting (claim_findings[14], [16], [17], [18]). The one disputed finding is that the page attributes the 'Hackers Day' nickname to security firm Blockaid as an official label, when the apparent originating source frames it as informal media shorthand and no Blockaid publication uses the term (claim_findings[1]); however, the page separately and explicitly discloses elsewhere that no security firm or law enforcement body has confirmed coordination between the attackers, so it does not overclaim a proven coordinated campaign (claim_findings[22]). Remaining issues are narrow sourcing-hygiene defects — two sources_used entries never cited inline (claim_findings[23]), one citation whose stored archive snapshot points to an unrelated page while the live source itself is valid (claim_findings[24]), and a PeckShield figure attributed to the wrong article — none of which affect a core claim or a critical citation.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}