Verify a decision

{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-26T05:08:26.428Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"684bbcae-ea55-4172-b244-30907016bf98","new_score":0,"page_slug":"h1-2026-crypto-hack-landscape-ai-agent-attack-vector-emerges","prev_score":0,"reason":"Independently re-tallying the reviewer's 49 claim findings confirms 38 confirmed, 5 partially supported, 2 disputed, and 4 unverifiable, giving a disputed_pct of 6/49 = 12.2% (disputed + unverifiable over total, excluding partially_supported per spec) -- squarely in the 10-30% band. The large majority of the page's quantitative core (incident counts and dollar totals from Blockaid, TRM Labs, and CertiK, and the Drift/KelpDAO/Lazarus attribution chain) held up against primary sources with no cross-firm misattribution. However, several issues cluster around the page's central editorial hook -- the 'AI agent attack vector' novelty framing -- rather than being scattered trivia. claim_findings[40] confirms an arithmetic error (39/52 = 75.0%, not the stated 79.6%) that is isolated rather than systemic. claim_findings[48] is more consequential: the page's timeline conflates an April 14, 2026 CoW Swap DNS hijacking with an unrelated March 12, 2026 MEV execution-failure event, and the $50.4 million from that second, non-hack event is folded into the 'four largest incidents' total presented elsewhere on the page as a hack tally -- a categorization error, not just a misattributed figure. claim_findings[35] identifies a 'first documented production EIP-7702 wallet-delegation drain on Arbitrum' superlative that appears in both section text and the timeline but was not found in any source, including the one cited for that incident -- this reads as the page's own invented claim rather than an over-generalization of sourced material. By contrast, claim_findings[2] shows the related but distinct issue where Blockaid's own sourced 'first ever' characterization of the BankrBot exploit was broadened by the page into an unattributed, sweeping historical claim that also omits a 2025 precursor incident -- an overreach of a real claim, not a fabrication. claim_findings[36] and [19] add a stale statistic presented as a current finding and a one-sided blame framing that omits a public rebuttal. None of the coverage gaps were flagged high priority, and reviewer confidence (0.75) was moderate rather than low, so the penalty sits mid-band rather than at either edge.","score_delta":-12,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}