Our evidence and review methodology

A method readers can challenge

Trust requires visible limits. This page states what the desk does, which evidence it accepts and where a conclusion stops. We do not invent first-hand tests, credentials, customers or regulator findings to make a page sound more authoritative.

Primary sources establish law and enforcement. Provider material explains game mechanics. Third-party pages can reveal common questions or conflicting claims, but they remain discovery sources until a closer record confirms the detail.

Every material challenge is welcome when it includes the exact page, disputed sentence and a retrievable source. Corrections are dated, and uncertainty stays visible when the available records genuinely disagree.

Bottom line: Every claim is assigned a source type and confidence level. We prefer regulator and provider records, date changing facts, preserve conflicts instead of averaging them, and do not award a single score that can hide a legal failure.

1. Six evidence tracks
2. Source-linked claim register
3. Read the reason behind every status label
4. Scope and last-reviewed date

Complete the list using sources you reached independently. If a material answer is missing, the absence is part of the conclusion; it is not a reason to guess.

Do not rationalise these away.

• False precision from a composite score
• Invented credentials or unsupported certainty
• Sharing passwords, one-time codes or unredacted identity records

If a warning appears after money or documents have moved, preserve the URL, messages, transaction references and terms before closing the session. Secure the connected email account and contact the payment provider promptly when fraud is suspected.

Trace the conclusion.

Sources are listed by the role they play. Government and regulator records establish Australian legal context; other material is explicitly labelled when it is used only for discovery or product detail.