Build the editorial requirement first, then ask which supplier can satisfy it. Do not let an export dictate what the publication ought to cover.
What should the catalogue assessment show?
Use a sequential reconciliation, keeping exclusions and unknowns separate:
| Stage | Required evidence | Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Advertised catalogue | Dated supplier export | Starting inventory only |
| Distinct games/configurations | Stable identifiers and reviewed matching | Remove duplicate rows without erasing meaningful variants |
| Editorially relevant | Buyer-approved priority list | Separate essential, useful and irrelevant titles |
| Permission confirmed | Applicable agreement and schedules | Unknown rights remain outside confirmed coverage |
| Audience eligible | Supplier territory statement and exclusions | Do not infer nationwide availability from a country label |
| Technically accepted | Recorded tests against agreed criteria | Distinguish tested passes, failures and untested titles |
| Review-ready | Version, release state and metadata provenance | Flag unresolved configuration differences |
Do not subtract the same title twice because it has two defects. A sequential reconciliation should record the first exclusion while retaining every known issue in the underlying register.
Which metadata fields matter most?
This desk recommends retaining:
- Internal canonical ID and supplier-specific game ID.
- Studio, title, alternative titles and configuration identifier.
- Original release date, relevant market release date and source.
- Demo availability date and last successful test date.
- Mechanics and editorial categories.
- RTP/configuration information where supplied and verified.
- Permitted domains and territorial restrictions.
- Launch method, permission reference and withdrawal status.
- Asset provenance and permitted reuse.
- Record update timestamp, kept separate from release date.
Playin specifically asks publishers not to review unfinished games. First Look Games’ DGS documentation also distinguishes the games present in its system from those with an available demo. Therefore, request evidence of final release state and actual demo availability rather than treating an early asset pack as a publish-ready playable review. (playin.com)
For reviews linked to a wagering version, request a supplier statement identifying the represented configuration. If equivalence is not evidenced, say so in the editorial workflow; do not claim that a short demo session verifies the underlying game mathematics.