Crispin Maudsley, games fact-checker
Verifying every figure before it is published
Our reviewer

Crispin Maudsley

Crispin Maudsley is the last stop before anything goes live on this site. He checks rules, maths and feature descriptions against the provider's data and rewrites any sentence that promises more than a game can deliver.

Fact-CheckingGame RulesData VerificationEditorial Standards
6check areas on every page
2sources behind each key figure
0unverified figures published
Review scope

What gets checked

Six areas are reviewed on every game page, whatever the release and whoever wrote the draft.

01

Rules accuracy

Every feature condition in the text is compared with the in-game rules, word for word where it matters.

02

Maths figures

RTP settings, hit rate, volatility and the maximum win are matched to the provider's published data.

03

Feature behaviour

Descriptions of collectors, multipliers and upgrades are tested against demo play before they are approved.

04

Limits and restrictions

Stake ranges and features that licences switch off are stated for the right version of the game.

05

Risk language

Anything that could read as a promise of winnings is rewritten into plain, conditional terms.

06

Visual accuracy

Screenshots, symbols and tables must match the version of the game that is actually described.

Background

Why a separate check matters

Crispin studied computer science at the University of Leeds and spent the first part of his career in software quality assurance for casino games, writing test scripts for bonus logic and payout tables. Finding the one condition that behaves differently from the specification became his speciality.

He later moved into editorial standards, where the same instinct applies to text. A writer who has spent a week inside a game can easily describe it the way it felt rather than the way it works; a second reader with no attachment to the draft catches that.

His reviews focus on anything a reader might act on: stated RTP settings, win caps, stake limits, trigger conditions and the wording around risk. When a claim cannot be supported, it is qualified or removed rather than softened.

A claim that cannot be checked is either qualified or taken out; it is never left to sound more certain than it is.

Workflow

From draft to published

Mark the claims

Every statement about rules, figures, limits or payouts is highlighted for checking.

Trace the sources

Each marked claim is matched to the game rules or the provider's data, with the source noted.

Confirm in play

Feature descriptions are confirmed in the demo where the rules alone leave room for doubt.

Sign off or send back

The draft is approved, or returned with corrections and questions for the author.

Written by an analyst who plays the games

Rosalind Pengelly researches and writes each page before it reaches the review stage.

Meet the author