Readers should be able to understand why an article exists, what evidence supports it and whether a commercial relationship is present.
Research workflow
| Stage | What we check |
|---|---|
| 1 · Scope | Reader question, market, applicable age restrictions and claim boundaries. |
| 2 · Verify | Operator identity, licence details, regulator records and published policies. |
| 3 · Test | Registration flow, navigation, support access, payments and account controls where lawful and practical. |
| 4 · Analyse | Terms, fees, wagering rules, exclusions, limits and material risks. |
| 5 · Review | Accuracy, readability, responsible-play language, conflicts and source quality. |
| 6 · Monitor | Material pages are dated and scheduled for review when facts may change. |
Source hierarchy
We prefer primary sources: regulator registers, legislation, official operator terms, game rules and first-hand product checks. Reputable secondary sources may add context but do not replace primary evidence for material claims.
Reviews and scores
Any future operator score will reflect documented criteria, including licensing, ownership transparency, payments, support, product usability, terms and responsible-play controls. Payment does not buy a score, position or favourable conclusion.
Artificial intelligence
Automation may support outlining, quality checks or data organisation. A human editor remains responsible for publication decisions, claim verification and corrections. Unverified machine-generated claims are not an acceptable source.
Updates, dates and corrections
Published and reviewed dates describe meaningful editorial work, not cosmetic changes. When an error affects a reader's understanding, we correct it promptly and record the nature of the change where appropriate.
Responsible-play standard
Content must not imply guaranteed wins, safe profit, recovery of losses or urgency to gamble. Material terms and risks belong near the relevant claim—not buried at the bottom of a page.