Trace a licence claim from document to conclusion
Consider the operator named in the Bitcasino investigation. These are three different checks, all consulted on 9 October 2026:
- The change notice: Bitcasino’s licence update identifies an operator transition effective 30 September 2026. That establishes what the operator announced and when it says the change took effect.
- The operator’s current statement: its licence page names EZ Spins Ltd and prints ALSI-202509076-F12. It is a first-party statement, not independent confirmation by itself.
- The independent record: the Anjouan register lists EZ Spins, bitcasino.io and a “Valid” status, with ALSI-202509076-FI2. The I/1 suffix discrepancy remains visible in our finding.
The company and exact domain match the observed register entry; FI2/F12 spelling remains unreconciled. The issue date is not the operator-transition date. This chain establishes the documented licensing relationship, not payment performance.
Check a fee on the route you would use
A tariff source needs the asset, network and charge. It establishes a published price; a completed payment record is needed to establish what a particular customer paid. Conflicting terms and help pages remain separate sources until reconciled.
| Statement | What the source needs to show |
|---|---|
| “The page lists a withdrawal fee” | The named token and network, the fee and the source date. |
| “A player received the withdrawal” | An attributable receipt confirmation or other case-specific payment evidence. |
| “The casino processes every withdrawal quickly” | A representative performance record; one help page or complaint does not establish this. |
Use the outcome actually supported by the case
- Player allegation
- An attributed claim needing corroboration; repeating it does not create an additional independent incident.
- Operator-approved withdrawal
- The operator says release was authorised. Receipt has not yet been established.
- Account access restored
- The player can use the account again. This is not proof that the disputed balance reached a wallet.
- Player-confirmed receipt
- The claimant reports receiving a stated amount. Check whether it settles the whole claim or returns only the deposit.
- Mediator closed the file
- The mediator has ended its process. Read the reason: closure can follow payment, rejection, non-response or lack of jurisdiction.
For example, the Rakebit €884.86 case includes a player-confirmed payment and a resolved status dated 7 October 2026. That updates the payment outcome; it does not erase the earlier delay. The Gamdom $589 account-verification case supports restored access, not independently confirmed receipt of the balance.
If the source changed or disappeared
A 403, login wall or timeout describes access failure during our check, not proven removal for everyone. A dated screenshot preserves the earlier observation; a readable replacement can establish a later change. Neither an inaccessible link nor a new editorial date makes the older observation current.
If two current sources disagree, the contradiction belongs beside the affected claim. A footnote containing a different limit should not silently override the number in the main answer.
Send the claim and the stronger evidence
Use the correction form with the page URL, the statement to check and a link or date for the replacement evidence. You can report a mistake without sending account credentials or private identity documents. Scoring weights belong in the methodology; this page explains how to inspect the underlying sources.