Research and product ideas
Research records explain a question, the evidence considered and what remains uncertain. The topics here have different outcomes: some informed an agreed choice, some support a proposal, and others remain earlier discovery.
Catalogue and presentation research
The 5 October 2026 catalogue examples explored why a commercial Brand, a Casino product and a legal Company need different identities. They also tested how promotions, payment terms and market differences fit the proposed catalogue. See the catalogue model.
A separate publisher-display case examined a composite welcome offer. Cash and spins had different wagering conditions; an Offer winnings cap differed from a normal withdrawal limit; some displayed source terms conflicted. The worked Offer explanation preserves those lessons as an illustrative example. The source case does not verify an operator's live terms or availability.
The accompanying Payload capability check examined whether the proposed editorial structure could represent owned details, exact values, languages and publication history. That technical check supports the catalogue review; it does not settle which facts the first public profile must contain.
Search comparison
The 3 October 2026 comparison considered a database-based search and several search engines against grouped results, typo handling, explicit filters and language needs. Typesense was selected for the first search direction. The comparison did not benchmark the product. The search review still needs the exact conditions, representative queries and measurable acceptance scenario.
Reuse and automation studies
| Study date | Question investigated | How to use it now |
|---|---|---|
| 28 July | Could a Supabase-based core cover the required behavior, and what failure modes mattered? | Historical comparison; current platform ownership is explained in platform work. |
| 11 September | Which existing non-parser code could be reused? How flexible could parser definitions be? | Reuse and design inputs, not a claim that the current public features are complete. |
| 13 September | What could Payload provide, what belongs in the product service, and which earlier non-parser scope assumptions needed reconciliation? | Background for editorial work and the separated automation proposal. |
| 14 September | Which information could a supplied HTML pack support? | Dated coverage research. The selected first parser package does not thereby include a staff-paste or uploaded-HTML rescue workflow. |
These groups account for the two July core comparisons, two September reuse/ flexibility studies, three September ownership/capability/scope studies and the HTML coverage study. Detailed library and infrastructure choices remain team engineering material; their product consequences are explained in the linked reader topics.
Ideas retained from earlier discovery
The July product and gamification discussions included ideas beyond the selected platform scope. They remain discoverable here so they can receive a deliberate scope decision.
| Earlier idea | What would need definition before selection |
|---|---|
| Comparing Casinos and calculating bonuses | Which facts can be compared and what a calculator actually computes; headline amounts alone are insufficient. |
| Notifications and terms-change alerts | Which changes matter, who subscribes and which reviewed version an alert describes. |
| Rebrand, design refresh and search-traffic migration | Content and URL migration, brand choices and the conditions for preserving valuable existing pages. |
| Withdrawal experiences, complaints and appeals | The evidence, publication, moderation and resolution rules described as open in community review. |
| Verified activity and data checks | What a verification label proves, which sources are admissible and how corrections work. |
| Audit tools, bots and live-data products | A specific user need, usable source and defined result. Earlier mentions do not establish a working service. |
| Token or wider first-party ecosystem ideas | A separate product decision; no current token, wallet or transaction service is promised. |
Candidate reward mechanics are explained under community rewards. They should not be confused with a Casino's own VIP programme.
Design images and examples
Earlier concept art and Casino screen studies show possible presentation. A "Verified" badge, payout time, popularity count or score displayed in a mockup still needs its own definition and evidence. A picture cannot establish a licence assessment, measured performance or supported product behavior.
Use documents for agreement to move an idea into a specific review question. The recorded outcome, rather than its appearance in this library, determines whether its scope has been accepted.