Methodology: how this desk works

Every platform review is scored against five columns: verification, withdrawals, format integrity, support and responsible-play tooling. Each column carries a fixed weight published in full on the methodology page.

The column weights

Verification carries 25%; withdrawals carry 25%; format integrity carries 20%; support carries 15%; responsible-play tooling carries 15%. The weights are not negotiable per platform; the desk applies the same weights to every reviewed platform.

How the data is collected

The desk operates three test accounts per platform. The accounts are not funded with personal money; the desk uses a fixed test fund and tops it up to a fixed level before each round of testing. The test fund is documented in the desk's internal ledger.

Every dated note on the news desk cites a public source. The source is either the platform's public help pages, a regulatory notification, or a state-level amendment. The desk does not cite platform promotional emails or press releases as a primary source.

How corrections are archived

When a reader writes in with a correction, the desk acknowledges within five working days, investigates, and either issues a correction note or explains why the original stands. Every correction is archived with a dated note on the relevant page.

What the desk does not do

The desk does not accept payment for reviews. The desk does not accept payment for editorial coverage. The desk does not accept payment for corrections. The header routes readers to the safety and responsible-play desks; the desk does not earn per hand or per deposit.

The desk publishes original photography for the homepage hero, the photo essay band, and the per-route hero. The images are generated for the desk's editorial purpose; they are not stock photographs and they are not licensed from third parties.

Where a rule diagram is required (such as the meld sequence diagram on the how-to-play desk), the diagram is produced in-house with a consistent visual language. The diagrams are not extracted from third-party publications.

Where a partner route is published, it points to a first-party redirect that is operated by an external partner. The desk does not control the destination, does not see reader activity at the destination, and does not earn from individual play outcomes. Editorial header routes point to internal desks (safety and responsible play); partner redirects, when present, are documented on this page rather than embedded in the chrome.

The contract

The affiliate contract is published at .control-room/affiliate-contract.json. The contract specifies the first-party URL, the destination (which is not exposed to the public in HTML, JavaScript or schema), the placement rules, and the rel attribute on every affiliate anchor. As of the current edition, a single sticky mobile partner CTA is rendered at viewports up to 430px; the desktop chrome, header, and drawer carry no persistent partner CTA.

The corrections archive

Every correction the desk issues is archived with a dated note on the relevant page. The archive lists the original claim, the correction, the source of the correction, and the date the correction was issued. A reader who wants to see how often the desk has had to correct itself can browse the archive; the desk welcomes the scrutiny.

The desk's track record

Since the desk opened in 2026, it has issued corrections on three occasions. Two corrections were on platform reviews (a change in withdrawal hold-back window that was not reflected in the original review; a typo in the column weight description). One correction was on a rule explanation (a clarification of the impure-sequence joker rule that the original draft had over-simplified). All three corrections are visible on the relevant pages.

How to file a correction

A correction can be filed by email to the editor's address on the safety page. The email should include: the page on which the correction is requested; the specific claim that needs correction; the source or reasoning for the correction. The desk responds within five working days.

What the desk will not correct

The desk will not correct an opinion, a recommendation or a column weight. The desk will correct a verifiable fact (a rule, a number, a citation) where the correction is supported by a public source. The desk will not retract an opinion because a reader disagrees with it.

The audit trail

The audit trail is the desk's internal ledger of decisions. Every review carries a date stamp; every correction carries a date stamp; every column weight is logged against the date the review was issued. The desk does not retroactively change column weights; if the desk changes the weights, the next round of reviews uses the new weights and the change is logged on the methodology page.

No paid placements

The desk does not accept payment for reviews, for editorial coverage, or for corrections. The header routes readers to the safety and responsible-play desks; the desk does not earn per hand or per deposit.

No affiliate kickbacks on reviews

The desk does not earn a higher rate from the affiliate route for any reviewed platform. The affiliate route is one route; the desk does not promote any reviewed platform above any other through the affiliate mechanism.

No platform ownership

The desk does not own, operate, finance or have a commercial interest in any reviewed platform. The desk does not have a financial relationship with any reviewed platform beyond the standard affiliate contract published in the affiliate-contract.json file.

No investor relationships

The desk is editorially independent. It has no investors, no parent company, no commercial backers with editorial input. The desk answers to its readers.

Why doesn't the desk publish a "best platform" list?

The desk does not publish a "best platform" list because the ranking depends on what the reader cares about most. A reader who cares most about verification will rank the platforms differently from a reader who cares most about support. The desk publishes the column scores; the reader applies the weighting.

Why doesn't the desk publish bonus recommendations?

The desk does not publish bonus recommendations because bonuses are marketing, not features. A bonus with a 30x wagering requirement is not a value-add; it is a constraint. The desk recommends that the reader treats any bonus as marketing and reads the wagering requirement before accepting.

Why doesn't the desk publish a "best format" guide?

The desk does not publish a "best format" guide because the format is a question of taste, schedule and bankroll. The desk publishes the format comparison on the games page; the reader chooses the format.

How does the desk handle a platform that closes?

If a reviewed platform closes, the desk marks the review as archived and notes the closure date. The desk does not retroactively change the column scores; the scores reflect the platform's performance during the period it was reviewed.

How does the desk handle a platform that merges with another?

If a reviewed platform merges with another platform, the desk marks the review as archived and notes the merger date. The merged entity is treated as a new platform and is added to the next review round only if it meets the desk's inclusion criteria.

How does the desk handle reader disputes?

Reader disputes are handled on a case-by-case basis. The desk investigates the dispute, communicates with the platform, and updates the review if the dispute is verified. The desk does not adjudicate disputes between a reader and a platform; the desk publishes its findings on the relevant review page.

The desk aims for accuracy in every column and every citation. Where the desk cannot verify a claim independently, the desk does not publish the claim. Where a claim is later found to be inaccurate, the desk issues a dated correction on the relevant page. The corrections archive on this site is the desk's audit trail and is open to reader scrutiny.