A “standard” is only useful to a reader if it can be traced back to something checkable — a regulator’s public register, a testing lab’s published methodology, a helpline’s own listed number. This page sets out how we try to keep that traceability intact, and what we do when we get something wrong.
How a piece gets written
We start from the primary source where one exists — a regulator’s own rules, a testing lab’s own description of its methodology, an official helpline’s own contact details — rather than from a summary of a summary. Where the underlying framework is genuinely general (most licensing regimes, most RNG testing processes) we describe it in general terms and say so, instead of dressing it up as if it described one specific operator. We do not publish star ratings, “best of” rankings, or verdicts on named operators; every piece here is about how a category of standard works, not a verdict on who meets it.
What “fair-play tested” means when we use it
When a piece references RNG or fair-play testing, it’s describing what an independent lab’s certification process typically checks — sample outcomes against an expected statistical distribution — and it’s explicit about the limits of that: a certification date says the game passed on that date, not that every subsequent build has been re-audited. We flag that distinction rather than letting “certified” read as a permanent guarantee.
Corrections
If a fact in a published piece is wrong — a helpline number that’s changed, a regulator that’s updated its process, a detail we got wrong reading a primary source — tell us via the contact page and we’ll check it against the source again. A material correction is noted with a visible “Last updated” date on the piece itself; we don’t quietly edit a published claim without a trace of the change. Minor corrections (typos, broken links) aren’t separately logged.
Update cadence
Regulatory frameworks and testing standards change slower than news does, so pieces here aren’t on a fixed republish schedule — they’re revisited when the underlying rule, lab process or helpline they describe actually changes, or when a reader flags something that needs a second look.