How We Verify Information and Reach Our Assessments

What Our Verification Process Is Based On

We distinguish between five things:

• The claim being checked: exactly what we need to find out.
• The evidence found: what the available sources tell us.
• The origin of the information: who published it and whether the source is appropriate for the question.
• The verification status: whether the supporting evidence is sufficient.
• The practical conclusion: what the findings mean for the reader.

A specific figure in an article outline or promotional description is not evidence in itself. It raises a question for verification but does not determine the answer.

Results are recorded in a central fact database, together with the value, status, source, date and any important qualifications.

What We Check

The questions depend on the subject of the page. For an article about a bonus, the key issues are the conditions for claiming and using it. For an article about the mobile experience, they are access methods, compatibility and restrictions.

We generally select 5–8 significant factors. These may include:

• the operator and licensing;
• bonus terms, wagering requirements and expiry dates;
• deposits, payment methods and withdrawals;
• identity verification (KYC);
• availability of games and individual features;
• customer support;
• the mobile version; and
• regional restrictions.

This is not a mandatory checklist applied to every article. We select the factors that genuinely affect the decision relevant to the topic, with Australian readers in mind.

One Factor Can Involve Several Separate Checks

“Bonus terms” are not one single fact. The bonus amount, wagering requirement and expiry date are separate details. Each is checked individually and assigned its own status.

Confirming an amount does not automatically confirm the expiry date or conditions of use. Likewise, mentioning one detail in several sections of an article does not turn it into several separate checks.

How We Decide Which Factors Matter Most

A factor’s importance depends on how much its outcome could change the reader’s decision.

A priority level is not a verification status. A critical question may remain unanswered, while a minor feature may be fully confirmed.

How We Choose Sources

We assess more than a website’s reputation. We consider how well a particular document answers the particular question being asked.

A source may suit one task but not another. An operator’s terms can establish a published limit, but they cannot, on their own, prove that every withdrawal is processed without delay. A user review might describe a delay, but it does not replace the official rules governing limits.

Official Does Not Mean Suitable for Every Claim

Official sources include the operator, regulator, official register, provider and their documents. A review website, forum, aggregator or mirror site does not become official simply because its address contains a brand name or its design looks similar.

Even an official document is not evidence for every possible claim. We must check whether it applies to the relevant offer, region, period and product version.

How We Consider User Experiences

One review is an individual signal, not a basis for a general conclusion. Several similar reports may suggest a pattern. A recurring pattern across separate independent platforms provides stronger grounds for an assessment.

However, copies of the same post are not counted as multiple independent accounts. We also consider how specific the account is, when it was posted and whether the circumstances differ.

Product Features and Operator Availability Are Different Facts

Documentation may confirm that a particular game or app has a certain capability. That does not prove a specific casino offers that version or that it is available to users in Australia.

These claims require separate checks.

Why a Brand’s Claim Is Not Independent Confirmation

If an operator publishes a promise, that confirms the promise was made. It does not necessarily confirm that the promise is fulfilled in practice.

For example, a published withdrawal processing timeframe and the actual time it takes each customer to receive funds are different questions. The first requires the relevant terms. The second cannot be established from the operator’s statement alone.

Where information comes only from the brand, we make its origin clear. If a claim needs independent confirmation and none is available, we use either “Partially Confirmed” or “Could Not Be Confirmed”, depending on the evidence.

There is no need for a separate sixth status for brand claims: the limitation is explained alongside the finding.

What Our Verification Statuses Mean

Confirmed

Sufficiently reliable evidence directly supports the specific detail under the stated conditions.

The status applies to that detail only, not to every characteristic of the casino or offer.

Partially Confirmed

Some information has been established, but an important condition, range or area of application remains unclear.

We show exactly what has been confirmed and what is still missing.

Could Not Be Confirmed

The available evidence is insufficient to reliably establish or confirm a value.

This does not automatically mean the claim is false or the feature does not exist. A value might appear in a source without enough evidence to verify it. In that case, we retain the reported value with a clear qualification.

If no value could be established at all, we state that explicitly.

Conflicting Information

Relevant, credible sources provide incompatible information, and we cannot establish one reliable version.

We show the discrepancy instead of selecting whichever version best suits the conclusion.

Disproved

A specific, testable claim was examined, and sufficiently reliable evidence directly showed that it was incorrect.

We do not apply this status simply because information could not be found. “Could Not Be Confirmed” and “Disproved” are different outcomes.

A Real Example: An A$10 Deposit Offer

The saved LevelUp Casino fact database includes a check for a separate free-spins promotion tied specifically to an A$10 deposit. The record is dated 4 October 2026.

What We Do When Sources Disagree

When researching a new detail, we compare the dates, regions, conditions and subject of each claim. Sometimes an apparent contradiction can be explained by different promotions, payment methods or product versions.

We then consider which source is closest to the primary evidence for that particular question and look for additional information.

If the discrepancy remains, the result receives the status “Conflicting Information”. We do not average incompatible figures or choose the one that looks better in the article.

If new information conflicts with a previously saved fact, that triggers a separate review. It is not a reason to quietly replace the data while writing the next article.

Why We Use a Central Fact Database

The same detail may be needed on several pages. To prevent each new article from producing its own version of the answer, we use a saved record.

The rule is straightforward:

• if the relevant fact is already recorded, we use its value, status and qualifications;
• if the fact is not recorded, we research it and add the result; and
• publishing a new article should not, by itself, overwrite an existing fact.

This also applies to “Could Not Be Confirmed” and “Conflicting Information”. Uncertainty should not disappear simply because the same question comes up in another article.

We check whether two records genuinely concern the same circumstances. Different regions, products or promotions cannot be merged merely because their names are similar.

This approach supports consistency across articles. It does not mean every previously published page automatically synchronises with the database or that discrepancies are impossible.

Why the Verification Date Matters

Bonuses, wagering requirements, payment methods, limits and game availability can change.

A saved fact reflects what was checked on a particular date; it is not a promise that the information will remain current forever. Preparing a different article does not count as rechecking that fact.

Changing a saved result should be a separate task supported by new evidence, with a review of the articles that used the previous information. Otherwise, one page could keep the old figure while another shows a new one without explaining why.

What the Verification Percentage Means

The percentage indicates how much of the information selected for checking has been verified. It is not a measure of casino quality.

For each factor, the following values are assigned:

The total is divided by the number of all details checked within that factor, then multiplied by 100%.

Unknown details remain in the calculation. We do not leave a question out just because an answer could not be found. Otherwise, the percentage would reflect only the convenient parts of the research.

Here is a hypothetical calculation, not an assessment of LevelUp Casino: of four details, two are confirmed, one is partially confirmed and one could not be confirmed. The result is:

The overall percentage for the page’s topic is the arithmetic mean of the percentages for its critical factors. Each critical factor carries equal weight in this calculation.

What This Percentage Does Not Mean

It is not the probability that a casino is safe, that a player will win or that a withdrawal will be trouble-free. It is not a guarantee of reliability, a legal assessment or an overall quality rating.

A low percentage may mean that much of the necessary information could not be verified publicly, rather than that the service is poor. To understand why, you need to look at the statuses. Missing evidence, conflicting information and direct disproof mean different things, even though all can reduce the percentage.

Assigning half a point to conflicting information also does not mean a claim is “half true”. It is simply a rule for the calculation, and the discrepancy must still be considered separately.

How We Reach an Overall Conclusion

First, we review the results for each individual detail. We then form a conclusion about each factor: what has been established, which conditions matter, where uncertainty remains and how it affects the decision.

After that, we select one of four overall conclusions for the specific topic of the page.

We do not reach the last conclusion solely because information is unavailable.

How Priority Affects the Conclusion

We consider critical factors first, followed by high- and medium-priority factors. A serious problem with a critical issue may outweigh several positive findings about less important features.

We do not add mathematical weights or assign an overall score out of ten to reach this conclusion. The verification percentage and the practical assessment serve different purposes: the first describes the strength of the evidence base, while the second explains what the findings mean for the decision.

The conclusion applies to the topic of that specific page, not to every aspect of the platform. The existence of a weaker competitor does not improve our assessment of the offer under review.

What We Do Not Do

Under this methodology, we must not:

• treat a promotional promise as proof that it has been fulfilled;
• hide unknown values or material conflicts;
• fill gaps with assumptions;
• upgrade a verification status to make an article sound more convincing;
• choose a source simply because it produces a convenient answer;
• describe a third-party website as official;
• use reviews in place of documents setting out formal conditions;
• treat a lack of information as proof that a feature does not exist;
• claim first-hand testing if none was carried out; or
• strengthen or soften a conclusion merely to create an impression.

Limitations of the Methodology

Not all information is publicly available. Some terms can only be viewed after registration or depend on a user’s location, a particular offer or individual circumstances.

Primary documents may be incomplete or ambiguous. Independent evidence about how a service actually operates may be limited. Conditions may change after the verification date.

A status therefore reflects the evidence available at the time of checking. It does not guarantee the same outcome for every user and does not replace reading the current terms before making a decision.

The methodology also cannot eliminate the possibility of mistakes when finding information, comparing sources or preparing an article.

About the Project and Source Transparency

Background about the project is available on our author page. Here, we describe how we verify information without substituting claims about qualifications, team size or guaranteed independence for an explanation of the process.

Source links allow readers to see where a particular claim came from, open the original document and understand the limits of the evidence.

Our own article presents the results of working with sources, but it is not independent confirmation of itself. If a fact appears in several of our articles, it is still one saved verification, not several new pieces of evidence.

The guiding principle is to help readers distinguish what is known, what supports it, what remains uncertain and why the evidence leads to a particular conclusion.