Verify a decision

{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-25T22:49:33.943Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"4b1608f0-b1d0-41e6-893f-f4656b6af442","new_score":0,"page_slug":"shelbit-exchange","prev_score":2,"reason":"Recomputing from the reviewer's own claim-by-claim data (21 confirmed, 4 partially supported, 2 disputed, 1 unverifiable out of 28 claims), disputed_pct works out to (2+1)/28 = 10.7%, which sits just above the 10% line and places this page in the minor-revision band rather than the approve band. The core facts of the case are solid: the OFAC designation, the VARA fines, the $4B flow figure, and the named individuals' convictions and denials are all confirmed against primary sources (claim_findings[0-2], [4-7], [9-10], [13], [16], [18-27]). But two claims were affirmatively disputed against OFAC's own listing and the page's own text: the page states Shelbit and Kayvanpour were sanctioned under both E.O. 13224 and E.O. 13902, when OFAC's listing applies 13902 only to the separately designated Aban Tether network (claim_findings[3]) — on a sanctions page, naming the wrong legal authority misstates what the designation covers and who else it could reach. Separately, the page contradicts itself about when $540 million in Binance-bound flows occurred, attributing the same figure first to the period after a January 2025 cease-and-desist and then to after a July 2026 enforcement action (claim_findings[15]). Beyond the disputed count, the reviewer also flagged real but lower-severity quality issues that the disputed_pct metric doesn't capture: an internal conflict between a 'tens of millions' figure and a $250M figure for the same gambling-network flows (claim_findings[11]), a $4B TRM Labs attribution that omits TRM's own larger $6.3B same-day total (claim_findings[8]), and quoted claims of direct IRGC control that omit Reuters' own stated inability to confirm IRGC control (claim_findings[12]). None of the five coverage gaps are marked high priority, and a targeted check for the unsourced secondary-sanctions-screening claim found on the related Aban Tether page confirmed it does not appear here, so this is not a case of an error propagating across pages. Taken together, the page's central allegations hold up, but it needs correction on the legal authority claim and internal date consistency before it should be considered fully validated.","score_delta":-12,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}