Verify a decision

{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-26T09:04:16.141Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"74c733a8-1c2a-4192-a238-a140c772db61","new_score":0,"page_slug":"coldcard-fake-hardware-audit-phishing-campaign","prev_score":0,"reason":"The page's core narrative is well supported: 25 of 31 checked claims are confirmed outright, several by independent Tier 1 reporting the page did not even cite, giving a disputed rate of roughly 3% under the review's own formula. One claim, however, was found disputed in a way that matters more than its count suggests: the page's guidance section tells readers that no phishing domain names or malicious download locations were ever published, but a contemporaneous security outlet in fact published a specific cloned domain, a spoofed sender address, and a command-and-control domain (claim_findings[22]). Because this sits in the page's own 'what to check against' guidance, it leaves readers believing no such checklist exists rather than simply not giving it to them, which the review flagged as a high-priority gap (coverage_gaps[0]) — a signal that calls for revision even though the overall dispute rate is low. A handful of smaller, already-supported claims were also found imprecise rather than wrong (an entropy figure that quotes the loosest bound in its source, a firmware date off by about two weeks, a warning attributed to two companies but confirmed for one), none of which touch the incident's core facts. Coinkite and Coldcard are consistently and correctly framed as impersonated victims, with the separate email-retention criticism kept apart from the phishing itself, and the safety guidance elsewhere on the page does not contradict itself.","score_delta":-8,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}