Evidence before a broad claim
The preferred sources are the Gambling Commission, payment providers, banks, operators’ current country-specific help and identified game suppliers. A method listed by one operator is not described as available throughout the market. A supplier’s international page is not treated as a list of GB features.
Dates describe a documentary review. They do not imply that a deposit was made, a withdrawal received or a game played. Hypothetical calculations remain labelled as examples.
What the reviewer checks
Guides are drafted with GPT assistance. A separate AI reviewing agent reads each complete draft for natural en-GB language, repetition, factual meaning and source coverage. The review checks that a payment’s direction, a balance type and a game version are not silently combined.
The reviewer preserves the evidence and identifies unresolved questions. A source gap leads to a narrower statement or an explicit limitation; a change in style does not make an unverified claim reliable.
Numbers and conflicts
A published aim is kept distinct from a guarantee. A provider’s limit is kept distinct from a cashier limit. If two pages from the same help centre give different timing indications, the guide describes the inconsistency instead of selecting the fastest figure.
A theoretical return does not predict a personal session. A wagering calculation does not establish the cost of completing a bonus or the amount left to withdraw.
Independence and correction
The factual guides and the local offer-design preview have separate purposes. Preview cards follow the order and sample figures in the supplied brief; they are not an independently verified ranking or a live campaign. Internal reading links are selected by the question a guide answers.
When an error is established, the relevant wording and source record should be corrected together. An unresolved source conflict should not be disguised by a change in writing style.
A review leaves a record
The editorial process keeps the original draft, complete reviewed copy and findings together. A factual change returns to the source and review process. The checked date is not renewed merely because a layout, image size or navigation control changes.
A correction should preserve the distinction that made the claim useful. A source’s working-day period must not become a calendar-day guarantee; an international game figure must not become a GB account claim. If the evidence supports only a narrower statement, that narrower statement is the one to publish.
Sources behind this note
Public documentation checked on 10 November 2026. Account-specific conditions and game versions may differ. This is not a record of a test deposit or played round.