Interview objective: Obtain configuration evidence rather than accept matching artwork or a shared title as sufficient.
Put this to: Chris Gallo, the studio’s game-mathematics or compliance lead and the reviewer.
Why it matters to buyers: GLI-19 version 3.0 includes requirements for free-play games to represent paid-game operation accurately and avoid misleading players about winning likelihood. The UK Gambling Commission’s RTS 6 also addresses corresponding free-play games and disclosure of demonstrations designed to show bonus features. These are useful technical and editorial reference points; neither should be presented as automatically governing every independent US demo publisher. (gaminglabs.com)
Draft framing — a good answer should cover:
- Studio game ID, build, rules, paytable and relevant configuration identifiers.
- Whether the endpoint is ordinary free play or a special feature demonstration.
- Which mechanics or options differ from the reviewed market version.
- The source and configuration associated with any published RTP figure.
- What a laboratory report covers, what it excludes and whether it identifies the deployed version.
Sharp follow-up: “What precise evidence would allow us to say these versions match—and what wording should we use if that evidence is unavailable?”
Buyer output: A version-matching record attached to each important review. Unverified equivalence should remain an editorial limitation, not be converted into an assurance based on a short play session.
Expert quote — awaiting interview: [Approved quotation and attribution.]