Verify a decision

{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-25T17:04:43.636Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"93c361f5-3120-4191-bbf7-1dd0d214cf18","new_score":0,"page_slug":"mica-non-compliant-exchange-risk-cluster-post-july-1-2026","prev_score":8,"reason":"Using the reviewer's authoritative claim-by-claim array (45 findings: 36 confirmed, 4 partially supported, 4 disputed, 1 unverifiable), the disputed-plus-unverifiable share is 11.1%, placing this page in the lower part of the revise band. The page's core narrative — the July 1, 2026 MiCA deadline, the roughly 80% non-authorisation rate, the ~322-entry CASP register, and the AscendEX and MEXC case studies — is solidly confirmed against ESMA, national-regulator, and independent press sources (claim_findings[0], [6], [10], [21]-[24], [28]). However, one of the four disputed claims is materially serious: claim_findings[34] shows the page places KuCoin, an exchange that has held an active Austrian FMA MiCA authorisation since November 2025, inside a section titled 'Other Major Non-Compliant Operators' alongside firms that never applied or withdrew, framing a subsequent onboarding restriction as something that 'complicated any subsequent CASP authorisation pathway' when authorisation had, in fact, already been granted. That is the most damaging category of error a page like this can make — naming a lawfully licensed business as non-compliant — and it is not adequately hedged for that entity even though other members of the same list (Bitget, Binance, Gate.io) are correctly and carefully distinguished by status. Two further disputed claims are legal-accuracy errors that do not misidentify any business but should still be corrected: claim_findings[7] overstates the Article 111 penalty exposure for unauthorised operation (EUR 15M/12.5% vs. the correct EUR 5M/5%), and claim_findings[35] inverts MiCA's actual position on investor compensation, wrongly implying MiCA creates a compensation guarantee that crypto-assets are in fact excluded from. A fourth disputed claim, claim_findings[32], overstates Binance's regulatory progress in France but does not misrepresent Binance's non-compliant status. Given the severity of the KuCoin misclassification combined with three further disputed legal-accuracy claims, the page needs targeted correction before its aggregate 'non-compliant cluster' framing can be considered reliable, but the overwhelming majority of its factual content is well-sourced and independently confirmed, so denial or delisting is not warranted.","score_delta":-15,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}