How our material is researched
Ownership Verification and Review Methodology
This methodology explains what we check, which sources carry the most weight and how evidence becomes a published record.
Editorial standard
One claim, one evidence trail
We do not treat a shared look, platform or promotion as proof of common ownership. Each material claim is assessed on its own evidence and stored separately so a change in one field does not silently alter another.
What this methodology covers
It applies to casino-brand records, network pages, sister-site relationships, comparisons, guides and time-sensitive editorial material. The main fields we assess are:
- Corporate relationship: the legal or corporate link between a brand and a parent, operator or group.
- Relationship type: corporate ownership, licensed platform use and loyalty-network participation are labelled separately.
- New Zealand status: whether current evidence supports availability to New Zealand readers at the recorded review date.
- Product details: payments, currency support, platform information, terms and account-level warnings are checked independently.
- Editorial claims: comparisons, guides and news statements must match their cited or recorded evidence.
Evidence hierarchy
- Primary regulatory or corporate materialCompany registers, regulator publications, licence records, corporate filings and formal company announcements receive the greatest weight for ownership and legal-entity claims.
- Official operator materialCurrent operator terms, help pages, payment information and corporate pages can support brand-level and product-level details.
- Reliable secondary reportingEstablished reporting can add context or identify a change that needs confirmation, particularly during acquisitions or migrations.
- Unverified or promotional claimsForum posts, copied lists, search snippets and visual similarity are leads only and do not establish a verified sister-site relationship.
When sources disagree
We check dates, entity names and the exact question each source answers. A newer source does not automatically override an older primary record if it addresses a different entity or relationship. If the conflict cannot be resolved, the claim remains pending, qualified or unpublished.
Research and publication workflow
- Set the claim.The reviewer states what must be proven, such as who owns a brand or whether a particular payment method supports NZD.
- Locate the best available sources.The source type, URL and retrieval date are recorded where the data model supports them.
- Match the entity.Trading names, legal entities, parent companies and platform providers are separated to avoid false connections.
- Record a status.A claim may be verified, pending, unavailable or unverified. Missing evidence is not converted into a positive claim.
- Editorial review.Material wording must accurately reflect the evidence strength and the date-sensitive limits of the record.
- Publish with context.The page explains why the relationship matters and links to relevant warnings, support or deeper research.
Relationship rules
A brand can share software, payment processing or a rewards programme without having the same corporate owner. We therefore label platform, loyalty and corporate links distinctly. Only the defined verified relationship is counted in the relevant sister-site total.
How scores and comparisons should be read
A displayed score is a compact editorial summary, not a guarantee of quality, safety, winnings, legal availability or suitability. It should be read alongside the written evidence, verification date and operator-level warnings.
- Unverified facts are not treated as positive evidence.
- Ownership and commercial destination status remain separate.
- A working external link does not prove that all terms or services are current.
- Reader preferences differ, so no ranking replaces checking the operator's current terms.
Maintenance and quality controls
High-interest pages receive scheduled reviews. Acquisitions, brand migrations, material operator-term changes, source updates and credible correction requests can trigger an earlier review. We check headings, internal links, canonical URLs, visible dates and the usefulness of each indexable page as part of publication quality control.
Corrections and reader evidence
Readers may submit a correction with the affected URL, disputed field and supporting source. We assess that evidence under the same hierarchy used for the original claim. See the Corrections Policy for the full process.
Limits
External services can change after a review. We cannot continuously monitor every brand, and a lack of current evidence may require a cautious label rather than a definitive statement.
Methodology reviewed: