Editorial policy

1. What this site is

Pragmatic Archive is an independent, fan-run informational resource about Pragmatic Play, a privately-held iGaming content studio. It exists to answer factual and analytical questions about the studio's games, mechanics, history, and place in the regulated gambling industry — and to do that better than affiliate-marketing sites, which dominate the search results for this topic and have structurally misaligned incentives.

We are not a casino. We don't accept wagers, host games, process payments, or sell anything. We don't advise readers to gamble, recommend specific operators, or rank casinos.

2. Independence and affiliate disclosure

Review pages on this site include a small number of clearly-labelled affiliate links in the sidebar. These links point to an intermediate redirect page (/goto/bonus) which forwards to a partner casino. If you sign up through one of these links, the site receives a commission. This arrangement helps cover hosting and research costs.

How we keep editorial integrity separate from this commercial arrangement:

• Every affiliate link is marked SPONSORED and uses rel="sponsored nofollow noopener" — the attributes Google requires for paid links. No reader can mistake these for editorial recommendations.
• Commission-earning links appear only in review sidebars, never inside the editorial analysis itself, never inside hub pages, never inside comparison tables, and never inside RTP rankings. The math never changes based on whether a link is profitable.
• We do not accept sponsored coverage from Pragmatic Play Limited, from specific operators, or from aggregators. No game gets a more favourable review because it happens to be available at the partner casino.
• We do not rank operators. We do not run "best casino" lists or promote deposit bonuses. The partner destination is a single neutral redirect, not a ranking of multiple operators competing for promotion.
• If a game has the objectively best math in its category, we say so — even if that game is not available at our partner. If a game has weak math (lower RTP than its original, misleading max-win framing, etc.), we say so — even if the commercial incentive would be to praise it.

In other words: the presence of an affiliate link does not create editorial obligation, and our editorial analysis does not create commercial optimisation. The two stay separate. If you think something on this site has drifted from that line, the contact details are in the About page and we will review it.

External links from this site (for example, to Wikipedia, official regulator websites, or helpline sites) carry the rel="nofollow" attribute where appropriate. We don't pass ranking authority to outside sites we link to, and we don't accept payment for links from outside sites pointing to ours.

3. How we source information

Sources are ranked in roughly this order of preference:

• Primary specifications — the studio's own published paytable, RTP declarations, math documentation, and press releases. When we state an RTP or max-win figure, this is the default source.
• Regulator filings — information published by the UKGC, MGA, GGL, AGCO, DGA, and similar authorities. These are authoritative for licensing status, compliance information, and jurisdiction- specific rules.
• Independent test lab certifications — Gaming Laboratories International (GLI), eCOGRA, BMM, Quinel. These are authoritative for fairness and math verification.
• Peer-reviewed research — for claims about problem gambling, addiction, and public health.
• Quality industry reporting — iGaming Business, Gaming Intelligence, EGR Global, Casino Beats, and similar trade publications for news, company history, and market-analysis claims.
• Wikipedia and tertiary summaries — only for uncontroversial factual background that's well- sourced on the Wikipedia article itself. We don't treat Wikipedia as primary authority.

For numerical claims (RTP percentages, volatility ratings, max-win multipliers, release dates) we prefer two independent sources where practical. Where only one reliable source exists, we say so.

4. Fact-checking

Before a claim goes live, it goes through a three-step check:

• Source verification — the statement is traceable to a source in category 1–5 above.
• Currency check — the source is either dated within the last 24 months, or the claim is about a topic that doesn't materially change (historical facts, mathematical identities).
• Plausibility check — the claim doesn't contradict any other published source we can find, or if it does, the disagreement is noted inline.

Claims that don't survive these checks are either removed, softened with qualifiers ("one industry report suggests…"), or flagged for later revisiting.

5. Update cadence

Content is reviewed on a rolling schedule:

• Regulatory and licensing pages — reviewed at least twice a year, or within 30 days of a significant regulatory change (e.g. a new market opening up, a licence being suspended).
• Helpline numbers — verified against each provider's official site at least twice a year, and any time a reader reports a broken or outdated number.
• Game data (RTP, volatility, max win, release date) — reviewed annually and whenever a major new release from the studio comes out that changes the comparative picture.
• Reviews and editorial rankings — revisited whenever the underlying catalogue changes materially.

6. Methodology for rankings

Our "Top 5" editorial ranking and any other ordered list on the site reflects a combination of factors we think matter most to someone evaluating a slot: popularity on publicly available operator leaderboards, RTP and volatility profile, max-win ceiling, quality of feature design, and longevity on the market. The exact weighting is a judgement call, not an algorithm, and we say so in the surrounding text.

Subjective rankings are labelled as such. They are our considered view, not objective rankings derived from a formal scoring model. Reasonable readers will weigh these factors differently than we do, and we explicitly invite that.

7. Facts, opinions, and labels

We try to separate the two clearly:

• Facts are stated plainly and should be traceable to a source.
• Opinions and judgement calls are signalled with phrases like "we think", "in our view", "is arguably", "feels like", or "worth playing because". If we're editorialising, we try to say so out loud rather than dressing up opinion as fact.
• Disputed or evolving claims are flagged — e.g. "industry estimates put annual revenue at $500–600m as of 2025, though the company is privately held and doesn't publish detailed figures".

8. Corrections policy

When we get something wrong — a typo, a stale number, a misattributed source, a flat error of fact — we fix it as soon as we know, and do so visibly. That usually means:

• A short correction note at the bottom of the affected page saying what was changed and when.
• The "Last updated" date on the page is bumped.
• Where relevant, a thank-you to whoever flagged the issue.

We don't silently rewrite the record. If you want to flag an error, see the contact section.

9. AI and automation

We use automation tools during research and drafting — the same way most modern editorial teams do. Every factual claim is checked by a human editor against the source hierarchy described in section 3 before publication. No page is published as raw machine- generated output.

We do not generate fake reviews, fake quotes, fake testimonials, or fake byline authors. If a page makes a statistical claim that originated from a model-generated draft, it still has to meet the same fact-checking bar as everything else.

10. Complaints and right of reply

If you represent a company or individual named on this site and you believe a statement about you is factually wrong, misleading, or unfairly one-sided, we want to hear from you directly. Send a short email explaining the specific statement, why it's inaccurate, and what the correct version is. We reply to every good-faith complaint.

Where a claim turns out to be wrong, we correct it following the process in section 8. Where we disagree, we'll say so and explain why. Either way, we don't ghost serious complaints.