The review sequence
Capture the claim
Record the exact operator statement, source and date.
Find primary evidence
Prefer regulator records, operator terms and direct product observations.
Test the friction
Inspect KYC, payout and bonus conditions for practical constraints.
Check the pattern
Review credible complaint evidence without treating an isolated post as proof.
Log uncertainty
Unverified information stays visible and reduces the available score.
Score and review
Publish only after all seven dimensions have a dated evidence trail.
Proof Score v1.0
Each dimension receives an evidence rating from 0 to 5. Its weighted contribution is calculated as rating ÷ 5 × category weight. The seven contributions add up to a maximum of 100 points.
Licence & ownership
Regulator status, named operator and corporate traceability.
Payout
Published rules, limits, fees, processing evidence and unresolved payout patterns.
KYC
When checks apply, what may be requested and how clearly the process is explained.
Bonus terms
Attainability, wagering, exclusions, expiry and misleading presentation risk.
Complaints
Repeated, credible player issues and the operator’s documented response pattern.
Crypto
Supported assets, networks, custody risks, fees and transaction clarity.
Transparency
Accessible terms, ownership, contacts, change history and source quality.
Evidence rating scale
| Rating | Status | Evidence standard |
|---|---|---|
| 5/5 | Strong | Current primary evidence, clear terms and no material contradiction found. |
| 4/5 | Supported | Good evidence with limited, clearly disclosed caveats. |
| 3/5 | Mixed | The core claim is supported, but material evidence or independent confirmation is limited. |
| 2/5 | Concern | Important ambiguity, restrictive conditions or credible unresolved issues. |
| 1/5 | Major concern | Serious contradictions, weak accountability or a substantial unresolved risk. |
| 0/5 | Failed | The claim is disproved, the evidence is absent, or the condition fails our minimum. |
What the final number means
The documented case is strong, with only limited caveats.
Generally supported, but important conditions still matter.
Material trade-offs or unresolved evidence require extra care.
The evidence reveals substantial risk or missing accountability.
The documented risks fail the BETPROOFLAB recommendation threshold.
Safety caps override the average
A high average cannot hide a critical failure. The following caps apply after weighting:
- Maximum 49: the current licence or named operating entity cannot be independently verified.
- Maximum 39: a credible, repeated and unresolved pattern of withheld withdrawals is documented.
- Maximum 29: the operator or promotion materially misleads players, targets a prohibited market or encourages restriction evasion.
- No score published: the Licence, Payout or Complaints review is incomplete.
Updates and corrections
Every published score must show its review date and source trail. A material licence, ownership, withdrawal, KYC, bonus or complaint change triggers a re-check. Confirmed factual corrections update the evidence record and the score; commercial pressure does not.