Does WaPo Fact Checker get the semantics of schema.org's ClaimReview wrong?

Today I checked to see if the Washington Post is using schema.org's
ClaimReview in one of their Fact Checker
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/> pieces.  They are
(that's great!) but I think that WaPo has misunderstood the semantics of
the markup by reversing the reviewRating scale.  I wonder if other fact
checking sites have made a similar mistake.

For an example, look at  this Fact Checker article
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/05/08/decoding-hhs-secretary-prices-spin-on-the-american-health-care-act/>
about claims made by HHS Secretary Tom Price on the AHCA which WaPo rates
as being very false, but gives it a high reviewRating of 5 on their scale
from 1 to 6.

WaPo's Fact Check article ratings
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/about-the-fact-checker/>
assign a checkmark for a claim they find true and from one to four
'Pinocchios' for claims they find to be partially (one) or totally (four)
false.  They also give no rating for claims they find unclear and a
'flip-flop' rating for claims on which a person has been inconsistent.

Their reviewRating markup goes specifies a worstRating of 1 and a
bestRating of 6. They map a checkmark to 1 and 'four pinocchios' to 5.  It
appears that their mapping is

 {-1:'unclear'; 1:'check mark', 2:'1 pinocchio', ..., 5:'4 pinocchios',
6:'flip flop'}


My understanding is that the intended semantics of a reciewRating is that a
higher number is better and it's implicit is that it is better for a claim
to be true.

So I assume that the WaPo FactCheck should reverse its scale, with
'flip-flop' getting a 1, 'four pinocchios' getting a 2 and a checkmark
getting a 6.

I wonder if other fact checking sites also have made this mistake/

--
Tim Finin, Computer Science & Electrical Engineering, U. Maryland,
Baltimore County, 1000 Hilltop Circle,
Baltimore MD 21250. http://umbc.edu/~finin, mobile:410-499-3522,
finin@umbc.edu, tfinin@gmail.com