Verify a decision

{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-25T18:04:07.001Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"1501a1f9-c595-4fbd-81cc-e4ee6619804c","new_score":7,"page_slug":"ravencoin-rvn","prev_score":22,"reason":"Using the claim-by-claim array (the authoritative count per spec), 5 of 25 claims are disputed or unverifiable, putting this page at 20% disputed — inside the range that calls for revision rather than removal. But the raw percentage understates two things the review surfaced. First, the page's central editorial framing — that Ravencoin's core team is 'effectively inactive' and left both the mining bug and an asset-overflow bug unaddressed (claim_findings[4], echoed in [17] and [24]) — is not just disputed, it is verifiably out of date: the official RavenProject GitHub shows the real maintainer shipped fixes for both bugs about a week to twelve days after the page's reporting window. That thesis anchors the summary and two full sections, so its staleness carries more weight than a single line item would. Second, four separate citations across different parts of the page turned out not to support what they were cited for — an unsupported 1,118% trading-volume figure (claim_findings[14]), a specific patch date attributed to a source that doesn't contain it (claim_findings[19]), a named individual's recommendation attributed to sources that never name him (claim_findings[16]), and a discovery credit sourced to an article that doesn't mention the claimed source (claim_findings[20]). Individually these are a handful of line-item errors; together, spread across five of the page's eight sections, they indicate the sourcing on this page is less reliable than a 20% headline figure suggests. The review also found the page mischaracterizes a 2019 precedent (claim_findings[21]) as supporting its 'externally patched, governance failure' narrative when the underlying facts contradict that framing. None of this rises to the level of the page's core August 2026 incident reporting being wrong — that portion is well corroborated — but the surrounding editorial narrative and citation apparatus need correction before this page should be considered current and reliable.","score_delta":-15,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}