A Claim-Evaluation Worksheet for Casino Slot Game Pages
A concise worksheet can prevent a page from turning an uncertain statement into a fact. It is useful for reviewing claims about a slot title, an operator, a hostname, a probability, or a legal status. The worksheet does not certify a product; it makes the evidence and its limits visible.
Step 1: Write the claim exactly
Copy the exact sentence, graphic label, or headline. Do not improve its wording during review. “This page lists a domain” is not the same statement as “the service is currently approved.” “A source describes a percentage” is not the same as “you will receive that percentage.” The first step is to avoid broadening the claim before testing it.
Step 2: Identify the subject
Name what the claim is about: exact game title and version, operator entity, brand, hostname, publisher, or a person’s future outcome. If the subject is unclear, the claim is not ready to publish. A similar spelling or shared brand word does not establish that two entities are the same.
Step 3: Locate the primary source
Record the original issuer, document title, exact URL, publication or “as of” date, and access date. Follow citations to their sources instead of relying on snippets or repeated summaries. The PAGCOR Electronic Gaming Licensing index is a starting point for its dated lists: https://www.pagcor.ph/regulatory/cegs.php. Read the actual document and relevant row.
For a seal claim, the official verification page requests a serial code: https://www.pagcor.ph/Securitysealverification/. A seal image does not show that a verification was performed. For game mechanics or RTP, the sources in the compliance packet do not establish specific values, so do not invent them.
Step 4: Match source scope
Ask whether the source is about the same product, version, entity, hostname, place, and time as the claim. Note footnotes, exclusions, and whether a list is a snapshot. In this research, PAGCOR’s current lists were marked as of October 29, 2026 and retrieved November 11, 2026. That is not an always-current status result.
A source may support only a narrower sentence. Preserve that scope in your wording. If a row establishes a printed domain string, say exactly that. Do not infer every redirect or related app.
Step 5: Record unknowns, then choose a verdict
Use one of three simple labels:
- Supported within scope: the source directly supports the exact, narrow claim.
- Partly supported: the source supports only some elements; rewrite and name the gap.
- Not established: the needed evidence is missing, mismatched, or stale.
Add a “what this source does not establish” field. For example, a domain list does not supply a game’s odds or prove a player’s result. An age label does not establish every eligibility condition.
Step 6: Review possible harm
Could the wording encourage a reader to gamble to make money or resolve debt? Could it imply guaranteed outcomes, misstate odds, or target excluded audiences? PAGCOR’s Responsible Gaming Code says advertising should not present gambling as an accepted way to make money or solve financial problems and prohibits misleading statements about odds or prizes: https://www.pagcor.ph/regulatory/pdf/RG-Code-of-Practice-v6.pdf. It also states the under-21 and student exclusions.
Blank template
| Field | Entry |
|---|---|
| Exact claim | |
| Subject and version | |
| Primary source and URL | |
| Source date / access date | |
| Scope matched? | |
| Limit or contradiction | |
| Harm or audience concern | |
| Verdict and revised wording |
The worksheet is a method for being precise, not a legal opinion. Advertising and affiliate classification questions remain separate and may require authoritative review.
Sources and limits: PAGCOR index, seal-verification page, and Responsible Gaming Code v6 (URLs above). No game-specific mechanics, RTP, payout timing, or winning probability is supplied by this worksheet.
Keep an audit trail
For a page that changes over time, save the version reviewed and note who made the claim, where it appeared, and whether the source was accessible. A broken citation is not support; retain the failure as an unresolved point instead of silently replacing it with a different source. When revising a sentence, keep the original wording beside the narrower replacement so another reviewer can see what changed. This makes correction more reliable and helps prevent a later editor from restoring an unsupported headline.