Documentation and sources behind our investigations

Our source hierarchy

Regulator registers, corporate registries, court or enforcement records and binding operator terms receive priority. Help pages, cashier documentation and public interfaces add operational detail. Independent technical records can help establish domain history and security context.

Affiliate summaries and search snippets can reveal a lead but do not establish a fact. We follow them back to the originating document wherever possible. Archived pages establish what was published at a prior date, not necessarily what applies now.

Five evidence labels

Every material claim should be understood through one of five labels. The label controls how strongly the claim can support a verdict and prevents an editorial inference from being presented as an operator fact.

• Official source — regulator, registry or first-party document
• Observed — visible in a public interface during the stated review
• Editorial assessment — our comparison or interpretation
• Public user report — attributed third-party allegation
• Not publicly confirmed — missing, inaccessible or conflicting evidence

Document and capture standard

A source record should include its title, exact URL, publisher, access date, relevant context and the claim it supports. A documentary screenshot must show the relevant clause or interface, retain enough surrounding context to be intelligible and avoid exposing personal data.

Screenshots are not used to prove information they do not visibly contain. Decorative casino images carry no evidentiary weight. When the interface changes, the old capture may remain useful as history but it cannot silently represent the current product.

Conflicts and inaccessible records

When two first-party pages disagree, both versions are recorded and the conflict is disclosed. We do not choose the more favorable version merely because it produces a cleaner verdict. Information behind login is not generalized from snippets or third-party reviews.

If a cashier, restricted-country list or account rule varies by market, the page states that limitation. If a document cannot be located, the field stays not publicly confirmed until a better source appears.

Dates, volatility and rechecking

Each case carries a factual-review date. Licence status, restricted markets, payment assets, networks, bonus rules and withdrawal limits are treated as volatile fields. Operator identity, historical enforcement and domain creation are usually less volatile but still rechecked after material changes.

A review date means the cited public evidence was inspected around that date. It does not imply that every private account screen, payment route or support response was tested.

What we deliberately exclude

We do not fabricate testing, operator replies, professional credentials or historical updates. We do not convert Trustpilot stars into a safety grade, copy long user complaints or treat anonymous posts as established events.

We also avoid false precision. Approximate catalogue sizes, processing estimates and complaint counts are identified as such. A value that cannot be reconstructed is not promoted as a measured fact.

How readers can audit a claim

Start with the case source register, open the document tied to the claim and check its date, entity, domain and market. Then compare the wording on the page with the source and note whether it is official, observed, alleged or editorial.

For payments, verify asset and network together. For licences, verify operator and domain together. For withdrawals, separate automated release, internal review, blockchain confirmation and account-specific compliance checks.