Publication and retained history
Readers should see the content an editor approved, with the terms and context that approval covered. Saving a newer draft, editing a shared Company record or receiving another source must not silently replace that published content. Human approval and retained publication history are agreed principles. The manual authoring journey and publication records below describe the proposed catalogue design, not an editor-screen walkthrough.
From a source to a reader
Manual authoring provides a complete route to publication. It does not require a parser run, generated prose, a Casino score or a rewards engine.
- Staff identify the Casino and the applicable Market. They establish the Brand association needed for a profile and link known Companies and payment methods without treating their names as proof of identity.
- An author retains source material and its context, then attaches support to the exact fact, payment condition, Offer variant, stage or benefit it supports. Gaps and conflicts remain visible.
- The author prepares typed facts and localized explanation. A saved record is still authoring material, not public content.
- An editor reviews one exact publication candidate: its facts, language, dependencies, source support and applicable content requirements. Approval identifies that candidate and retains who decided, when and why.
- Publication retains an approved revision and selects it as current. The publication and its delivery to the public product refer to that same revision. A failed publication must preserve the previous selection.
- The public product assembles its Casino and Offer view from approved revisions, and search receives the corresponding published facts. Draft notes, private evidence, staff identities, decision reasons and internal analyses stay private.
Future automated intake can supply retained sources and proposals at the same points without replacing review or taking ownership of published facts.
What counts as retained support
A URL tells an editor where material came from, but the page at that URL can change. The proposed model retains the relevant excerpt or artifact, its source identity, origin and capture or manual-admission context. Material supplied by an editor remains distinguishable from independently retrieved material.
Support is attached to an exact subject and term. For example, the evidence for a spin-winnings cap belongs to that spin component, not vaguely to every offer on the Casino page. Reordering stages must preserve that link. A correction retains its own support and provenance instead of rewriting what the original source said.
If a table states unlimited cashout and a paragraph states a cap, both assertions remain available for review. Receipt of a source does not make it true, and arrival order does not resolve a conflict. An unresolved Market, eligibility condition or material restriction must pass the requirements of its selected content type before it becomes a public assertion. See the offer example for those distinctions in context.
Public images and private supporting evidence have different purposes. A logo can be used for presentation; a retained capture supports a claim. A publication must preserve the image or exact retrievable version needed to understand its historical content. Replacing an image file or changing a remote URL must not rewrite that history.
One approved candidate, separate publication units
The proposed locale candidate brings together a selected authoring revision, shared market facts, exact localized copy and the dependencies it uses. Approval binds to that resolved content. If a locale fallback is approved, the candidate records the fallback before publication; the reader's request must not silently introduce different text later. There is no market or currency fallback in this publication model.
The profile and each independent Offer have separate publication units. Each unit retains its own approved language revision. An Offer's dependent terms, stages and components publish together; changing that Offer does not require republishing the profile.
More than one independent Offer can feed the public view through the same separate publication process.
An Editorial Decision records acceptance, rejection or an edit of a proposal. It does not publish content by itself. The exact rules for resetting pending approval after changes belong to each selected workflow. The deferred operator-publication package for one welcome draft requires whole-draft approval and resets it on every edit. That narrower policy is not a universal rule for all manual content or future catalogue families.
What later edits and withdrawal change
A new publication supersedes the current selection while retaining earlier approved content and the support it relied on. Editing a Brand name, Company, payment condition or translation does not mutate old publications. Readers see the selected approved revision, not a reconstruction from today's drafts.
Withdrawal is a recorded action against the prior selection, with an authorized actor, time and reason. It preserves history and the Casino identity. A delayed older publication update must not make withdrawn content current again. Publication and search updates can take time to propagate; search is a derived view and does not grant permission to publish or perform a product action. Exact visibility and withdrawal timing remain to be agreed and measured.
Retained catalogue history does not promise a complete historical public page. A page can also contain current scores, community aggregates and commercial or runtime state from separate product owners. Retaining old CMS content alone does not preserve every one of those values at the same moment.
Four lifecycles, four different questions
| Lifecycle | Question | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Subject identity | Which Casino, Offer or future programme is this? | A Casino remains the same product when its profile is withdrawn. |
| Factual availability or validity | Where and when do its terms apply? | An Offer's stated end time can pass after publication. |
| Editorial publication | Which approved content is selected for readers? | A replacement draft can exist while an earlier revision remains public. |
| Acquisition and preparation | What happened while gathering or preparing material? | A failed source retrieval says nothing authoritative about Casino availability. |
These lifecycles interact without becoming one status. A draft programme is not necessarily unavailable; a scheduled event is not automatically published; and a published offer can expire. A source service failing must not be treated as proof that a profile or offer does not exist.
The public presentation rules for profile absence or withdrawal, Offer expiry, missing locale content and source failure remain open. The diagrams describe successful composition; they do not choose whether every such case hides a section, displays a message or uses previously retained content.
Where future automation fits
The deferred parser would extract statements and retained source material. Editorial preparation would turn eligible inputs into supported proposals. Editors would work on a separate draft, retain their decisions and approve publication through the selected workflow.
The original input, generated proposal, human draft and publication have distinct roles. A new generation must not overwrite manual work automatically. Repeated delivery should not create duplicate imports, and a late superseded result must not roll newer applicable content back. Successful extraction does not prove complete coverage or grant publication approval.
Future generation records retain the input, configuration and source lineage needed to explain a proposal. Broader mechanics need their own supported editorial treatment. CMS publication also does not approve a fact for Casino scoring or create a reward: those are separate decisions described under future capabilities.
For the review question, see catalogue and publication.