No—verify the exact configuration before claiming equivalence. A shared title or artwork is not sufficient evidence that the demo and the reviewed implementation use the same settings. Play’n GO has publicly described offering multiple RTP configurations, illustrating why a title-level match alone is insufficient. (playngo.com)
For each review-supported demo, request or record:
- Studio and game identifiers.
- Build or version information, where available.
- The RTP displayed in the demo’s help or information screen.
- The reviewed operator’s corresponding configuration, if making comparisons.
- Differences in bonus-buy, jackpot or other features.
- Whether the endpoint is an ordinary playable demo or a feature-showcase mode.
As a useful UK-specific reference, the Gambling Commission’s RTS 6 requires applicable play-for-free games on the same facilities to represent the corresponding money game accurately. Its guidance also addresses demonstrations with higher-than-normal returns intended to show bonus features. This is not a universal US publisher rule or proof that an independent demo matches a particular operator’s game. (gamblingcommission.gov.uk)
Where equivalence remains unknown, say so. A practical editorial label is: “Demo configuration checked on [date]; equivalence to individual casino versions has not been established.”
Do not present a short manual play session as certification of the game mathematics.