Require separate evidence for publishing permission, practical availability and the legal suitability of the surrounding experience. A successful launch answers only part of the availability question. Copyright permission concerns the intended use of protected material; browser access controls concern whether content can be loaded or inspected. Neither substitutes for the other. (copyright.gov)
Use this proposed approval structure:
| Decision | Evidence to request | What does not establish it |
|---|---|---|
| May we publish it? | Applicable agreement, approved domains, content schedule, territories and distribution method | A public URL, supplier logo or successful iframe |
| Can our visitors play it? | Dated tests for the intended browser, device, location and consent state | A supplier sales demonstration |
| Is the surrounding page suitable? | Review of promotions, destination operators, audience controls and data flows | A statement that the game uses virtual credits |
Assign an owner to each decision: commercial or legal for rights, engineering for availability, and legal/privacy/product for the surrounding experience.
For the evidence register, use five labels: documented, supplier-claimed, observed in testing, analyst inference and unknown. Do not merge them into a single reassuring “verified” badge.
Recommended launch gate: no production deployment where the intended publishing permission remains unresolved. Keep technical pilots bounded by whatever testing permission has actually been granted.