Verify a decision

{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-27T03:07:01.160Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"6e55f8b2-3144-47ec-94b4-ab11d0f072c2","new_score":12,"page_slug":"summer-fi-exploit-july-2026","prev_score":20,"reason":"The incident narrative itself holds up well: 26 of 33 checked claims are confirmed and the core facts -- amounts, timing, attack mechanics, on-chain addresses, and root cause -- are corroborated by the official post-mortem and independent security analysis, with claim_findings[26] noting the page's root-cause framing matches rather than overstates the post-mortem. Only one claim is genuinely disputed: claim_findings[7], a background-section date for a 2023 Series A round that independent records place roughly 16 months earlier, which is a corporate-history detail rather than an error in the incident itself. However, the Remediation section (claim_findings[27], tied to a high-priority coverage gap) tells readers the protocol is pausing vaults while patches are developed, but omits that the operating company, Summer.fi Labs, announced a full wind-down nine days after the exploit -- a materially different and more severe outcome than what the section conveys. That omission changes the meaning of the page's ending for a reader deciding how much ongoing risk the entity still poses, so it is treated as more than an 'expand later' gap and pushes the verdict to revise despite the low disputed_pct. Two link_rot findings (claim_findings[31], [32]) further show sourcing-hygiene lapses -- one archive snapshot points to an unrelated article and one repeatedly-cited source is dead with no backup -- but since the underlying facts they support remain independently verifiable, these are treated as minor, not core-narrative, defects.","score_delta":-8,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}