Editorial Policy

By Sarah Collins · Updated 30 April 2026 · The published editorial standards for Fortunica Online — pipeline, sources, corrections and what we deliberately don't cover.

This page documents how Fortunica Online produces its content, what sources we treat as authoritative, how we handle corrections, and what we deliberately don't write about. The principles haven't changed since launch in October 2023; the specifics get refined as we learn from mistakes.

Editorial pipeline

Every published review goes through a fixed sequence. Sarah Collins commissions or self-assigns the review. The casino is then run through the nine-stage testing protocol. Daniel Pereira runs the second-pass technical and payments testing in parallel, drawing on twelve years of UK financial-compliance background. The first draft is written by Sarah. Imogen Khatri fact-checks any references to specific slots, providers or RTP figures and flags issues where the wording materially affects the recommendation. The draft sits for a 48-hour cooling-off period, then gets re-read by Sarah before publication. Average time from operator-selected to review-published is fourteen to seventeen working days.

Primary sources

Authoritative for our purposes:

Not authoritative for our purposes:

Use of AI tools

We do not generate review text with large language models. The reviews are written by Sarah and edited by the team, full stop. We do use AI tools in two narrow ways: a) draft transcription of recorded interviews with operator support, and b) sentence-level grammar checks during proofread. Neither produces published prose.

The reason for the policy is straightforward — bonus T&C analysis requires reading and weighing specific clauses, and AI tools generate plausible-sounding prose that often misstates the legal effect of a clause. We've tested it. The error rate on bonus T&C summary tasks is around 30% in our internal benchmarks. That's not acceptable for a publication readers might rely on for deposit decisions.

Corrections policy

If we get something wrong, we correct it in place with a dated note at the top of the review. We do not silently rewrite. Corrections to material errors (bonus terms misstated, withdrawal speed materially wrong, missed trap clauses) trigger a downgrade in rating and an explicit "we got this wrong" note. Sarah's "Mistakes I've Made" section retains the three biggest published errors since 2021 with permanent dates and what changed because of them.

Conflicts of interest

We earn from affiliate commissions on operators we recommend. That's the central conflict; full detail in our affiliate disclosure. Specific guards:

What we don't cover

Out of scope by editorial decision:

Comments and reader contact

We don't run open comments under reviews — moderation cost is high and most affiliate-site comment sections degenerate into operator-staffed positivity or competitor-staffed negativity. We do read every email at [email protected] and reply within two working days unless flagged out-of-office. Reader-flagged errors and disputes feed into review updates.

Editorial team standards

The team — Sarah, Daniel, Imogen — operates under three written standards: factual accuracy with citation, transparency about methodology, and willingness to publish unflattering findings about operators we'd otherwise have a commercial relationship with. The third one matters. We've delisted three operators since launch (detail on About Us); each delisting cost us affiliate revenue.

Editorial independence is the project's central value. Affiliate disclosure.