REVIEW METHODOLOGY
How WagerMark researches and verifies claims
The method is designed so another reader can understand the evidence, reproduce the check and see what was not tested.
STEP 01
Define the claim and its consequence
Every review starts with a written claim, not a score. Examples include “licensed in Australia”, “withdrawals in one hour”, “30× wagering” or “96% RTP”. The team then classifies the consequence: legal status, financial risk, data security, product information or consumer support.
Claims with higher consequences require stronger and more independent evidence. A visual-design observation can be supported by the visible interface; a legal claim should begin with legislation and the responsible authority.
STEP 02
Use a source hierarchy, not a source count
Five low-quality pages repeating one claim do not outweigh one current official record. Freshness, jurisdiction, entity match and directness matter more than volume.
STEP 03
Distinguish desk research from hands-on testing
| Label | What it means | Required record |
|---|---|---|
| Research-based | Public documents and observable pages were reviewed | URLs, source owners, dates and limitations |
| Technical observation | A page, mobile layout or security header was directly inspected | Device/tool, date, URL and result |
| Transaction tested | A real account and payment process was used | Approved protocol, dated evidence, amounts and privacy-safe record |
| Support tested | A real support interaction was completed | Channel, time, question, response and transcript |
The current publication is research-based. It does not claim real-money deposits, withdrawals, support tests or personal operator accounts.
STEP 04
Visible editorial scores and their evidence limits
The home page displays nine WagerMark editorial scores restored at the publisher’s request. Each score uses a 1–5 scale, appears visibly beside the operator name and is represented by one matching Review object. The build does not invent a user-review count or AggregateRating.
The supplied files do not contain individual scoring worksheets or transaction records. Scores therefore must not be described as hands-on testing, proof of Australian authorisation or a guarantee of payment. Bonus, wagering, deposit and payout fields remain claims to check against current terms.
A complete editorial record should document the criteria, evidence for every input, consistent weighting, review date and material negative findings. Commercial value must not change the score.
STEP 05
Update when the decision-relevant fact changes
- Law, regulator guidance or licence status changes
- Operating entity, domain or payment descriptor changes
- Bonus, withdrawal, privacy or complaint terms materially change
- A primary source corrects or withdraws information
- Credible evidence challenges a published conclusion
- A scheduled source check finds an inaccessible or stale citation
Each modified page shows an actual last-reviewed date. A date is not a “last tested” claim and must not imply work that did not occur.
STEP 06
Keep commercial activity outside the conclusion
The restored cards include operator-facing “Claim Now” links. They use sponsored and nofollow attributes because some destinations contain referral-style paths and the compensation model was not verified. The relationship is disclosed near the comparison and on the advertising page.
A commercial partner may correct a factual error but cannot remove a documented negative finding or approve the final conclusion. The owner still needs to identify whether clicks, registrations, deposits, losses or fixed placements generate revenue.
WagerMark Editorial Team
The team publishes research-based guides and separates official records, independently checkable evidence and operator-controlled statements. No individual reviewer or professional qualification was supplied with this project, so none is claimed.
Read the team profile