Editorial policy

Who writes, and who signs

Everything published here carries the same byline — BY THE [BRAND] EDITORIAL DESK — and no invented author profiles. Casino review sites conventionally publish rosters of named specialists with photographs and biographies; a substantial share of those are fabricated, and a reader cannot tell which from the page. We are not adding to that, so the byline says what it is.

The trade-off is real and worth naming: a house byline gives a reader less to hold accountable than an individual name would. What stands in its place is set out on who writes this — a published rubric with the rule for every point, a source and a date on every fact, a nine-check protocol that prints what has not been tested, and a threshold below which we publish no score at all rather than a plausible one.

Named authorship follows the work rather than preceding it. When individual reviewers have made the deposits, timed the withdrawals and contacted the support desks themselves, they will be named for those pages, and the credit will describe what they actually did.

What counts as evidence

Ranked, strongest first. A review states which of these each claim rests on:

1. A public register. Licences are taken from the regulator's own published register, quoted with the licence number and the date of the snapshot we searched.
2. Our own measurement. A deposit made, a withdrawal timed, a chat contact clocked, a page loaded on a real handset. Reviews give the date and the value measured, not an adjective.
3. The operator's own terms. Bonus conditions are read from the operator's terms page, with the date we read them. Where the headline and the terms disagree, we quote the terms and say so.
4. The provider's specification. Slot RTP, volatility and maximum win as published by the studio — with the warning that operators can and do run a different RTP configuration.

What never counts: an operator's marketing copy, an affiliate manager's e-mail, a figure from a competing review site, or a number no one on the team can trace to one of the four sources above. Anything unverified is left out, not softened into a vague sentence.

How current a page is

• Casino reviews are re-checked at least every 90 days.
• A licence status change triggers a same-day update, whatever the schedule says.
• Bonus terms carry the date they were last read; an offer we cannot re-verify is removed rather than left to rot.
• Every page states when it was last updated. We do not bump that date for cosmetic edits.

Corrections

Mistakes are fixed in public. When a factual error changes what a reader would do, we correct the page, add a dated note at the bottom of it saying what was wrong, and — where the error affected a score — restate the score with its new number. We do not quietly edit and move on, and we do not delete a page to make an error disappear.

Report one to TO BE COMPLETED: contact e-mail. Operators get the same route as readers, and no faster.

Use of AI

We use AI tooling for research assistance, data processing and drafting support. It does not decide scores, and nothing is published on the strength of an AI-generated claim alone: every fact in a published page traces to one of the four evidence sources above, checked by the named author. The author is accountable for the page regardless of which tools produced the first draft.

Saying what we have not done

The rule that shapes this site more than any other is that an unmeasured thing must be visible as unmeasured. It is applied in four places, and each one costs us something.

• In the score. A criterion we have not assessed leaves the denominator rather than scoring zero, and the page prints how many of the hundred points were available. Below forty assessed points no score is published at all — which today means several well-known casinos carry no rating on this site.
• In the protocol. Each review prints the same nine checks, and every line reads either as a dated result or as "not tested yet" with a note that the axis scores nothing. There is no third state, so an omission cannot hide as a blank.
• In the data. Where an operator served us a page we could not confirm as the British edition, every figure from that page is discarded rather than published. Four brands in this catalogue are in that position, and one of them served a euro-denominated offer under a UK title — which is what the check exists to catch.
• In the sources. Where a fact came from a web-archive capture rather than a live page, the review says so and links the dated capture instead of presenting it as a current reading.

The cost of all four is that pages here look less complete than the market standard. The alternative — filling gaps with an operator's own marketing or another site's figures — would make the pages look finished and mean nothing.

Commercial separation

• Commercial terms are negotiated after a review is scored, never before.
• Nobody with a commercial role can change a score, a ranking or a review's wording.
• Operators do not see reviews before publication and get no right of approval.
• Operators with no commercial relationship are reviewed on the same rubric and listed in the same tables.
• A commercial dispute is never a reason to unpublish a review.

The money side is described in full in the affiliate disclosure.