Verify a decision

{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-25T19:10:29.464Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"b2053f83-78a0-4a66-b2cc-6cbb4bd884dd","new_score":20,"page_slug":"pump-fun-solana-labs-jito-labs-rico-mev-class-action-sdny-2026","prev_score":28,"reason":"The reviewer's own math puts disputed content at 9.5% of claims (2 of 21), just inside the approve threshold, and the page's core facts -- the docket number, filing dates, defendant roster, dollar figures, and the Jito Labs dismissal -- are all confirmed against primary sources such as a Skadden press release and the UK company registry (claim_findings[7], [19]). The page also correctly treats this throughout as a private civil lawsuit rather than a government enforcement action, which matters given three companies are named as RICO defendants. However, two errors sit right at the edge of that threshold and both concern the page's own subject -- litigation venue and procedure: it states twice that a comparable criminal MEV case was tried in the Eastern District of New York when it was actually the Southern District, the same district as this case (claim_findings[17]), and it cites a single article for an entire set of procedural dates (a December 2025 order and a January-February 2026 briefing schedule) that the article does not actually contain, even though the dates themselves check out elsewhere (claim_findings[2]). A related item flagged only as 'stale' -- the page presents a parallel criminal trial's outcome as an open question while omitting that the trial already ended in a hung jury months before the page's own reporting cutoff (claim_findings[18]) -- compounds the same weak spot. Individually these are within the approve band; together, clustered in the same comparative-context sections and unflagged as high-priority by the reviewer, they warrant a light revision rather than a pass.","score_delta":-8,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}