Research workflow
- Identify the service. Record domain, brand, stated operator, product category and relevant jurisdictions without assuming the marketing identity is verified.
- Collect primary materials. Inspect current terms, privacy policy, bonus rules, payment pages, fairness documentation and licensing claims.
- Check external evidence. Look for regulator records, corporate records where available, domain context and dated independent reporting or user evidence.
- Resolve conflicts. Compare dates, source authority and scope. Contradictions stay visible if they cannot be resolved.
- Label evidence status conservatively. Missing evidence remains unresolved; it is not silently treated as a pass.
- Publish sources and dates. Material claims should link to evidence or identify the basis of the judgement.
Evidence hierarchy
| Level | Evidence | What it can establish |
|---|---|---|
| Direct record | A dated action documented by SkinRake, with appropriate proof | Only the action and conditions actually observed |
| Authoritative primary | Regulator register, legislation, official company registry | The record shown by that authority on the check date |
| Operator primary | Terms, policy, product or support material from the operator | What the operator states, not proof that practice matches the statement |
| Independent secondary | Credible reporting, analysis or dated third-party documentation | Corroboration or context, weighted by quality and proximity |
| Community signal | User reviews, forums, social posts | Patterns or leads, not independently verified facts by default |
Evidence labels
- Verified
- Supported by a source appropriate to the claim and checked on the stated date. This does not mean every aspect of an operator is verified.
- Operator-stated
- Published by the operator but not independently demonstrated by SkinRake.
- Reported
- Attributed to an external source or user account; reliability depends on that source.
- Unverified
- Insufficient evidence to confirm the claim.
- Conflicting
- Material sources disagree and the conflict is unresolved.
- Untested
- SkinRake did not perform the relevant account, payment, game, KYC or support action.
Assessment criteria
Depending on the product category, reviews consider the following areas. Their relative importance can differ because a marketplace, skin casino and crypto casino expose readers to different risks.
Identity and oversight
Stated operating entity, accessible legal terms, licensing claims and whether authoritative records can be matched.
Funds and items
Advertised deposit and withdrawal methods, minimums, fees, time statements, custody and KYC conditions.
Fairness and product
Published game rules, house-edge or odds information, provably-fair documentation and product availability.
Terms and conduct
Bonus restrictions, account powers, excluded regions, complaint patterns, policy clarity and material contradictions.
Evidence status and comparison boundaries
Each profile uses evidence-status labels to describe the available source record. A label does not estimate the probability of safety or payout. Read it with the evidence notes, check date and stated limitations.
- Evidence statuses are comparable only when the same publication rules and category apply.
- Affiliate status does not change evidence status or editorial placement.
- A bonus size cannot outweigh serious identity, terms or withdrawal concerns.
- Material evidence changes can change a finding, status or comparison order.
- No placement removes the reader's need to confirm local legality and current terms.
When hands-on tests are added
A future direct test should identify the date, region, device or method where relevant, amount or item class, action taken, result, limitations and any operator reimbursement. One successful transaction would not establish universal reliability. Historical testing must not be represented as current without a new check.