Verify a decision

{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-25T07:04:19.536Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"08c005d3-9ebb-4c40-bf5e-1c55a285674d","new_score":0,"page_slug":"lab","prev_score":8,"reason":"A recount of the review's own claim_findings array (35 entries, not the summary's stated 36) shows 23 confirmed, 9 partially_supported, 1 disputed, 1 unverifiable, 1 link_rot, and 0 stale, giving a corrected disputed+unverifiable rate of 5.7% — below the review's own reported 11.1% and inside the approve band on numbers alone. However, the review also flags a high-priority coverage gap: nearly every on-chain claim on this page (wallet clusters, the multisig-signer link to RIVER, Bitget deposit patterns) traces back to secondary reporting on ZachXBT's analysis rather than any directly cited blockchain explorer, Dune dashboard, or Arkham/Nansen record, so a reader cannot independently verify the on-chain backbone of the page's most serious allegations. That gap, combined with a cluster of nine partially_supported findings that mostly reflect citation-mismatch rather than factual error (claim_findings[8], [16], [17], [31] cite sources that don't directly carry the specific detail asserted, even though the underlying facts check out elsewhere), and one dead citation (claim_findings[26], the WEEX link) that also underlies the page's single disputed claim (claim_findings[25], an internally inconsistent $6B FDV at a $24 token price which is mathematically impossible at 1B token supply), together justify a light revise rather than a clean approve. None of this undermines the page's core, well-corroborated narrative of ZachXBT's insider-control allegations, the BVI loan, and the July 2026 token dump.","score_delta":-8,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}