What do the 15 questions ask?

1. Can you describe the buying decision and who owns it?

• A — 0: We want more games, but have no defined problem or accountable owner.
• B — 1: We have a deadline or supplier preference, but requirements and spending authority are unclear.
• C — 2: An owner, provisional budget and requirements exist, but success criteria or resources remain unconfirmed.
• D — 3: A named decision-maker has approved the scope, decision date, budget ceiling, engineering capacity and measurable acceptance criteria.

Evidence to collect: A one-page sourcing brief covering domains, intended audience, essential games, exclusions, current problems and the decision required.

Recommended owner: Founder or product director. An urgent deadline earns no additional points.

2. Is the proposed experience demonstrably within the demo-only scope? LAUNCH GATE

• A — 0: We have not checked the game’s payment, credit or reward behaviour.
• B — 1: The supplier calls it a free demo, but we have not inspected the experience.
• C — 2: We have inspected the main flow, but optional features, redirects or promotions remain unclassified.
• D — 3: The proposed game flow has been checked against the demo-only definition; surrounding promotions are separately inventoried and reviewed under Question 5.

Evidence to collect: A short product description, screenshots and a record of all payment, reward, registration and outbound-link paths.

Why this check matters: Michigan’s regulator describes gambling as typically involving consideration, prize and chance. That state-specific explanation supports examining actual product mechanics, not treating a “free” label as a complete legal analysis. (michigan.gov)

3. Can the supplier demonstrate authority to grant your publishing rights? LAUNCH GATE

• A — 0: We have a working URL or copied iframe, but no permission evidence.
• B — 1: We have marketing claims or an informal assurance that affiliates may use the demos.
• C — 2: Written permission exists, but the granting party’s authority or coverage of some studios remains unresolved.
• D — 3: We have direct rights-holder permission or reviewed evidence of downstream licensing authority, tied to the proposed game schedule; unresolved titles are excluded.

Evidence to collect: The written grant, contracting entity, covered studios or games, authority evidence and the responsible reviewer’s decision. Where upstream agreements are confidential, request an acceptable alternative evidence route rather than assuming access to every contract.

Source basis: The Copyright Office recommends identifying ownership when seeking permission. The Library of Congress advises obtaining permission in writing and clarifying the intended use. (copyright.gov)

4. Does that permission cover your actual domains, delivery method and territories? LAUNCH GATE

• A — 0: We assume access covers any website and audience.
• B — 1: Some domains or territories are mentioned, but the scope is vague.
• C — 2: Most requirements are documented, but a domain, territory, asset use or delivery method remains unresolved.
• D — 3: An approved scope schedule covers the exact domains, permitted US audience, exclusions, delivery method, promotional context, assets, duration and termination conditions.

Evidence to collect: A rights matrix separating iframe embedding, self-hosting, external linking, artwork reuse and onward distribution. Record US exclusions explicitly rather than substituting “international access”.

Concrete example: MarketJS distinguishes fixed-fee delivery of compiled files from subscription delivery of game links. Its standard licence covers one domain, with custom arrangements for multiple domains—illustrating why delivery and domain rights need separate confirmation. This is an adjacent HTML5 licensing example, not a branded slot-demo recommendation. (marketjs.com)

5. Have the page’s promotions and intended US audience been reviewed? LAUNCH GATE

• A — 0: We assume a free demo makes every surrounding promotion acceptable.
• B — 1: We have a general disclaimer, but no inventory of offers, links or target locations.
• C — 2: Links and audiences are mapped, but relevant promotional, disclosure or audience-control questions remain open.
• D — 3: The applicable requirements have been reviewed by a competent adviser, necessary controls are implemented, and commercial relationships are appropriately disclosed. If there are no promotions, that finding is documented.

Evidence to collect: Page examples, outbound destinations, target-state assumptions, disclosure wording and the review decision. Include supplier-injected promotions, not just links your editors added.

Source basis: FTC guidance calls for clear, conspicuous affiliate disclosures where the relationship requires disclosure. Separately, Michigan publishes its own licensed online operators; that list is evidence for Michigan, not permission to promote an operator throughout the United States. (ftc.gov)

6. Have third-party data flows and children’s privacy applicability been assessed? LAUNCH GATE

• A — 0: We do not know what the embedded experience collects or shares.
• B — 1: We rely on the supplier’s privacy-policy link or our existing cookie banner.
• C — 2: We have a data-flow inventory and applicability review, but controls or supplier responsibilities remain untested.
• D — 3: Relevant data flows, purposes, recipients and retention are documented; applicability is recorded; required consent, opt-out and other controls have been tested for the proposed experience.

Evidence to collect: Network observations, supplier responses, audience assessment, privacy notices, relevant contractual terms and control-test results.

Source basis: California’s Attorney General states that covered businesses must honour GPC as an opt-out of sale or sharing. COPPA applicability includes child-directed services and certain actual-knowledge situations; the FTC directs readers to the amended rule for current requirements. Neither framework should be assumed to apply identically to every publisher. (oag.ca.gov)

Date check: The amended COPPA rule’s general compliance deadline was 22 April 2026, subject to specified exceptions—not a future deadline as of this assessment. (govinfo.gov)

7. Can you count the games that are genuinely useful and eligible for your launch?

• A — 0: We compare suppliers by advertised catalogue size.
• B — 1: We have checked a few recognisable titles, but not the catalogue systematically.
• C — 2: A deduplicated, prioritised catalogue exists, but some permission, territory or availability statuses remain unknown.
• D — 3: Each launch title has an editorial priority, stable identifier, permission status, territory status and dated test outcome; unknown and excluded titles remain visible outside the usable count.

Evidence to collect: A catalogue waterfall: advertised records → distinct games → editorially relevant games → documented eligibility → observed working coverage.

Recommended counting rule: Apply filters sequentially so overlapping exclusions are not deducted twice. Do not count a successful test in one environment as proof of availability everywhere.

This waterfall is the desk’s proposed comparison method, not a supplier-certified availability measure.

8. Can editors match the demo to the game version and claims they publish?

• A — 0: We identify games by title or thumbnail alone.
• B — 1: We copy metadata without recording its source or configuration.
• C — 2: Most fields have sources, but version matching, updates or discrepancies remain unresolved.
• D — 3: The launch catalogue has sourced metadata, checked game identity and configuration, an update owner, and a rule to withhold or qualify unsupported review claims.

Evidence to collect: Studio and game identifiers, release information, mechanics, available configuration evidence, return-to-player information where used, provenance and last-checked dates.

Source basis: Slots Launch’s API documents fields including release date, RTP and volatility. A field’s presence is not, by itself, evidence that a particular reviewed configuration has been matched. As a separate UK regulatory example—not US law—UKGC RTS 6 expressly addresses representative free-play behaviour and labelling of certain enhanced demonstrations. (docs.slotslaunch.com)

9. Is the integration designed around the supplier’s current documented interface?

• A — 0: We depend on copied endpoints or an undocumented workaround.
• B — 1: A developer can load a game locally, but authentication, caching or domain rules are unresolved.
• C — 2: The intended integration works in staging, but security, quota or migration checks are incomplete.
• D — 3: The authorised implementation has passed review of credentials, registered domains, signing, expiry, caching, quotas and applicable migration requirements.

Evidence to collect: An architecture diagram, documentation version, configuration inventory, security review and deployment checklist. Never include live secrets in the quiz response.

Current supplier example: Slots Launch distinguishes catalogue synchronisation from visitor-facing game loading. Its documentation announces 15 November 2026 as the signed-request migration deadline, with possible account-specific legacy exceptions. On 27 October 2026, that deadline is still ahead: affected buyers should confirm their account requirements and test the migration rather than rely on older token-only examples. (docs.slotslaunch.com)

10. Have you tested the actual mobile experience in the environments that matter?

• A — 0: Nobody has tested the proposed publisher pages.
• B — 1: We tried one desktop browser or relied on supplier screenshots.
• C — 2: We tested several environments, but device, location, network or privacy-state coverage is incomplete.
• D — 3: Repeated tests cover the agreed browser/device matrix, permitted locations, relevant privacy states and network conditions, with pass/fail evidence and unresolved defects recorded.

Evidence to collect: Device and OS, browser version, physical device versus emulation, location, network conditions, privacy state, timestamp and outcome. Include orientation, controls and navigation back to the publisher page.

Why Safari needs explicit attention: WebKit documents default third-party cookie blocking under its tracking-prevention system. Treat cookie-dependent behaviour as a test case—not an instruction to ask visitors to disable protection. (webkit.org)

11. Can you measure game readiness rather than just page loading?

• A — 0: We have no launch measurement.
• B — 1: We count HTTP success, iframe load or wrapper-page performance as a successful game launch.
• C — 2: We observe when a game becomes playable, but timing, failure handling or measurement limitations are inconsistent.
• D — 3: We define launch start, readiness and timeout; use a verified supplier signal or clearly labelled reproducible observation; and report successful launches separately from failures and unknown outcomes.

Evidence to collect: An event dictionary, timing method, sample records and limitations. If using postMessage, validate the sender and message format.

Source basis: MDN explains that iframe load can fire even when content fails to load. Its messaging documentation requires sender checks; Google’s LCP documentation also identifies limitations in measuring cross-origin iframe content through JavaScript. (developer.mozilla.org)

12. Do failures produce a controlled fallback and an actionable support record?

• A — 0: Visitors get a blank frame or indefinite spinner.
• B — 1: We show a generic error, but cannot identify the affected game or failure conditions.
• C — 2: Some fallbacks and support routes work, but key failure cases remain untested.
• D — 3: Supplier-approved simulations cover relevant denied-access, unavailable-title, expiry, quota and timeout cases; visitors receive an appropriate fallback and staff receive reproducible incident information.

Evidence to collect: A failure matrix, screenshots, affected game IDs, redacted request details, escalation contacts and known support limitations.

Recommended rule: Never use a fallback to bypass territorial restrictions, authentication or permission limits. Do not diagnose every browser failure as a supplier outage: an iframe event alone cannot establish successful loading. (developer.mozilla.org)

13. Have you compared total operating cost on the same basis?

• A — 0: We compare only the headline fee or “free” label.
• B — 1: We include subscription and setup costs, but omit internal work or usage assumptions.
• C — 2: A twelve-month model exists, but quotas, eligible coverage or maintenance estimates are unresolved.
• D — 3: Direct, aggregated and hybrid routes are compared using dated terms, consistent usage scenarios, staff effort, support, hosting and exit assumptions; material unknowns are shown separately.

Evidence to collect: Quotations or free-access terms, billing definitions, internal hour estimates and sensitivity cases.

Concrete billing check: Slots Launch states that each iframe game load counts towards its request quota and recommends a launch screen to avoid unnecessary loads. Ask every candidate what its own billable unit includes; do not assume requests, page views and completed sessions are interchangeable. (docs.slotslaunch.com)

14. Can you respond to supplier withdrawal without improvising the entire migration?

• A — 0: We have no dependency map or exit plan.
• B — 1: We assume another supplier can replace the catalogue immediately.
• C — 2: Dependencies and contractual notice terms are recorded, but replacement permissions, exports or recovery steps remain untested.
• D — 3: We have reviewed termination and retention rights, mapped affected pages, rehearsed disabling or replacing access, and assigned an owner and budget for recovery.

Evidence to collect: The dependency map, actual notice provisions, permitted exports, replacement-rights status and a rehearsed fallback procedure. Do not assume downloaded assets or metadata can be retained indefinitely after termination.

Source basis: The public Slots Launch terms reviewed for this quiz allow suspension or termination with or without prior notice. Confirm the agreement that governs your account; this example is a reason to inspect terms, not a finding about every supplier’s service. (slotslaunch.com)

15. Is there a documented decision process for the pilot and public release?

• A — 0: We will launch when the integration appears to work.
• B — 1: A supplier and target date are chosen, but acceptance is informal.
• C — 2: A pilot plan exists, but approvals, acceptance thresholds or rollback ownership are incomplete.
• D — 3: The authorised pilot has produced an acceptance record; product, engineering, content and the relevant risk reviewer have recorded their decisions, with monitoring, rollback and remaining exceptions assigned.

Evidence to collect: The decision log, acceptance results, approved launch scope, exception register and named release owner.

Recommended rule: An accepted exception must not override missing publishing rights, prohibited territorial use or an unresolved applicable legal requirement.