Skip to main content

Review the future Casino assessment

For review — no decision recorded

Prepared 5 October 2026.

Decision requested​

When scoring is selected, which evidence and measures should underpin a Casino's assessment, and what explanation should readers see when the evidence is incomplete?

This is a future design review. It does not start scoring work or make a numeric score necessary for the current platform.

Current agreement​

Scoring belongs to the product's trust responsibilities and uses separately approved inputs. Catalogue publication alone is not scoring approval. Commerce does not enter the score or organic ranking, and a user's reward balance is not a Casino assessment.

The TrustScore proposal remains a draft. Its 0 to 100 scale, 20 measures, weights, thresholds and labels require product, data and legal agreement.

Proposal for discussion​

Review the five candidate areas in OC Score: legitimacy, payments, terms, community experience and applicable crypto information. Choose meaningful evidence for each selected measure and decide when a result is evaluable. Keep unknown, not disclosed, not applicable, stale, disputed and sample-insufficient outcomes distinct.

The draft proposes an assessment with category reasons, coverage, update date, source types and formula version. It retains exact inputs so a later correction or formula change cannot rewrite a historical result. Human approval applies to first publication and material changes under the selected future workflow.

Illustrative result​

Two Casinos might both receive an internal calculation of 82 while one has much less supporting evidence. The reader should be able to distinguish them, and inadequate evidence may prevent showing a numeric total. A fiat-only Casino should not receive a penalty merely because a crypto measure does not apply. These examples explain the proposed method; they are not real scores.

Choices and tradeoffs​

  • Confirm or revise the measures, category and metric weights, evaluation rules and whether market-specific policy is needed.
  • Select authoritative regulatory and other sources, freshness periods and handling of conflicting evidence. A source confidence value is not a score.
  • Agree minimum community samples, small-sample methods and whether contributor reputation may affect weighting within a defined cap.
  • Decide the evidence gates for a numeric result, provisional display and final publication. The draft's thresholds are candidates rather than defaults to activate without approval.
  • Agree material-change rules, public labels and explanations for suspension or stale data. Decide any later automatic publication policy separately.

A demanding evidence gate can leave more Casinos without a number. A permissive one risks overstating a weak assessment. The chosen reader explanation must make that tradeoff visible without equating missing evidence with adverse facts.

Response requested​

Identify the measures worth carrying forward, the evidence required and examples of sufficient and insufficient support. Propose the public explanation for an unknown licence status, an insufficient community sample and a material change. Mark the decisions needing specialist review rather than treating draft weights or legal labels as approved.

Recorded outcome​

No decision recorded. This brief does not authorize implementation or change delivery timing. Share the specific page and version through the existing discussion channel. Respond with accept, requested changes or defer, identifying the question concerned. How to review explains how an actual agreement is recorded and reflected in the product documents.