Verify a decision

{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-25T18:17:25.615Z","decision":"review_approve","investigation_id":"a40409a6-9de6-46ce-98c4-986fc81c21c0","new_score":12,"page_slug":"blockfills-reliz-technology-group","prev_score":12,"reason":"Of 20 checked claims, 14 were confirmed against primary or reputable secondary sources, 5 were partially supported, and only 1 was unverifiable, with zero claims contradicted (disputed_pct = 0.05). The page's most consequential assertions all hold up: the BlockFills/Reliz Technology Group corporate relationship is a documented co-debtor/trade-name structure rather than an inferred link (claim_findings[0]), and the Dominion Capital lawsuit, the March 3, 2026 TRO, and the Chapter 11 filing details are independently corroborated and correctly presented as unadjudicated allegations rather than findings of fact (claim_findings[12], [13], [16]). The five partially_supported findings (claim_findings[3], [5], [6], [8], [15]) are citation-attribution gaps, not factual errors -- in each case the reviewer traced the underlying figure or name to be accurate through other reporting, just not to the specific source footnoted on the page. None of the review's five coverage gaps were rated high priority, and reviewer confidence (0.78) was not low enough to warrant softening toward denial or pulling this out of the approve band. What would change this: if any of the unsupported investor names (Fenbushi Capital, Gate Ventures, Morgan Creek Digital Assets) had been found to be fabricated rather than merely uncited, or if the $75-80M loss aggregate had been shown to conflict with rather than simply lack an itemized reconciliation, this would move into review_revise territory regardless of the disputed_pct math.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}