Editorial Policy

Source hierarchy

We rank sources by how close they are to the facts.

1. Primary sources first: the operator's own terms, provincial regulators, and official help organisations.
2. Current law and regulator publications for legal, age, and self-exclusion details.
3. Our own reading and explanation of how a documented process works.

Where a claim cannot be tied to a source, we leave it out rather than guess.

Evidence standard

Every material claim about an offer, licence, eligibility, payment, payout, age, or tax point needs a source and a checked date before we repeat it across the site. We separate facts an operator states from anything we have observed first-hand, and we label them differently. We do not publish payout times, ratings, or licence details we cannot support.

How rankings are set

Rankings follow the method on the How We Rank page: published terms, payment rails, approval versus settlement, and disclosure clarity. When the operators are placeholders, as in this build, the order reflects presentation only and carries no endorsement.

Commercial separation

Advertising and editorial are separate functions. Compensation can affect which operators we have links for and can influence placement, as our Advertising Disclosure explains. It does not change how we read terms or describe a process. Where the two disagree, the evidence wins.

Authorship

Content is produced by the Framing Edge editorial desk. When a named contributor with relevant experience writes or reviews a piece, we will publish their name and role. We do not attach invented credentials, testing, or verification claims to any byline.

Updates and freshness

Offers and terms move often. When active, we plan to re-check volatile items at least weekly and run a broader editorial review at least monthly. We display an updated date only after a genuine review, and we never roll dates forward automatically. Removed operators, changed rankings, and fixed claims are handled through our Corrections process.