Verify a decision

{"actor":"judge","artifact_identity":"d540fb417f41da35d77a28058caa49e7","band_override":null,"decided_at":"2026-11-02T00:50:22.866Z","decision":"review_revise","delist_requested":false,"disputed_pct":0.5,"investigation_id":"e3c2ffbe-d630-4133-ba9e-c7a1013ddc3a","judge_def_hash":"8800307026131ea9d5da939d32b9a1f1884b2b84a5de33c8e87931d36f38d0f8","new_score":62,"page_slug":"haruko","prev_score":62,"reason":"Of 10 claims reviewed, 2 were disputed (claim_findings[1] and [2], the same defect: the page calls the stolen funds 'confirmed' when CoinDesk attributes the loss to unnamed sources) and 3 could not be verified because the reviewer did not fetch the sources (claim_findings[4], [8], [9]). That gives 50%, in the significant band. The core incident facts, funding details and client list were confirmed, and the reviewer's confidence is modest (0.55), so the penalty sits at the lighter end of the band. The page also omits that the post-mortem was still unpublished in early October (omission_findings[0]), and the 'multiple reports' wording on the bare-metal point rests on a single source (claim_findings[3]).","reviewer_def_hash":"bc11388ce4bc4deea1b064fea362663ae06e3f4f687f99604769044d6ffba770","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":4,"severity_override":{"applied":true,"band":"significant","from_band":"significant","reason":"omission_findings[0] is material: the page stops at Sept 18, 2026 and does not say the promised post-mortem was still unpublished on Oct 2, 2026, and that Haruko did not answer questions about the reported fund losses. This is a core part of the incident story. The band is held at significant rather than relaxed, and not pushed to deny because the omission is a staleness issue and not a false claim."},"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}