The editorial workspace
Staff need one place to prepare content, inspect its support and carry out the decisions they are allowed to make. The agreed design uses one staff admin interface for editorial work and for separately authorized product operations. A shared screen does not make every operation the same kind of approval.
Preparing catalogue content
Editors manage Casino descriptions, market facts, Offers, translations, media and platform-authored articles. In the proposed manual catalogue they can link known identities, retain supporting material, write explanations and inspect gaps before publishing.
For example, an author could prepare a new Offer and find that its cashout table conflicts with its written terms. The workspace needs to retain both statements and the unresolved issue. The author can improve the draft while the previously approved Offer stays public.
Useful staff distinctions are the source as received, the editable draft, the review decision and the exact published revision. A source capture is private support; a logo is a presentation asset. Both may need retention, but for different reasons. The publication model explains those relationships.
Editorial and product decisions
Editorial publication decides what catalogue or platform-authored content readers see. Moderation decides what happens to a user's contribution. Account restrictions, commercial operations and future scoring approval have their own product rules and permissions.
Staff may use the same admin interface for these jobs, and the same person may hold more than one permission. This does not require two-person approval. It does require the responsible product service to check each product action; being logged into the editorial workspace alone is insufficient.
The exact staff permission delegation remains an implementation contract. Moderation and verification describes the contribution boundary.
Manual work before automation
Manual authoring is a useful complete path. It does not need a parser run, generated text, a Casino score or a rewards engine. The proposed collection and publication details still require agreement before implementation.
Future source-to-draft automation would bring in retained results and supported proposals. Editors would keep a separate human draft, so new generation would not overwrite their work. The detailed automated preparation and operator workflow are deferred.
Follow review and publication for the reader-facing journey, or catalogue and publication for the proposal now available for stakeholder review.