Verify a decision

{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-26T15:26:41.043Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"2166bf7d-c5c4-4a44-a9a8-fbed8b9d3827","new_score":6,"page_slug":"coldcard-coinkite-hardware-wallet-firmware-exploit","prev_score":18,"reason":"The page's core narrative holds up: 25 of 39 extracted claims are confirmed, and disputed_pct comes to 15% (1 disputed + 5 unverifiable of 39), which falls inside the range calling for revision rather than approval or removal. The review found one materially disputed point — the page's description of the specific code change behind the flaw does not match the most detailed independent technical post-mortem, which attributes the bug to a different mechanism (a build/linker failure rather than a source-code function swap); this is one atomic claim under the reviewer's methodology, but it concerns the page's central technical explanation, not a peripheral detail, so it is weighted accordingly. Two figures were accurate when published but were quickly overtaken: the page's ~$70M 'Total Scope' loss figure was superseded within days by ~$89M and then ~$116M with signs of multiple attackers, and its 'no legal action' note predates a reported suspension of customer-data deletion in anticipation of litigation about a week later — both understate rather than overstate the incident's severity. Separately, the review surfaced that this page overlaps substantially with several other index pages describing the same underlying incident with inconsistent loss totals and no cross-references between them; that is a real index-quality problem, but it is a finding this page-level verdict records rather than one it has a mechanism to resolve.","score_delta":-12,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}