Editorial Policy

Last updated: 2026-08-12

What This Policy Governs

This page describes how Eldiar Furniture selects sources, structures coverage, reviews published work, and handles corrections. It applies to all analytical pieces, news items, country data notes, and culture-and-design features published under the desk’s byline. It does not govern the conduct of third-party operators we may reference — that is a matter for their regulators, not our editorial code.

Source Selection And Hierarchy

We work from a clear hierarchy of sources. Primary regulatory documents — consultation papers, licensing decisions, enforcement actions, published registers — rank above operator press releases, which rank above trade-press summaries, which rank above unattributed industry chatter. When a regulator has said something on the record, we cite the regulator. When only an operator has said it, we say so explicitly and treat the claim as a claim, not a fact.

The specific source types we draw on are:

• Regulator filings and registers — UK Gambling Commission publications, Malta Gaming Authority license registers, Curaçao Gaming Control Board updates, and equivalent bodies in other licensed markets.
• Operator disclosures — annual reports where the operator is publicly listed, investor presentations, and on-the-record statements to trade press.
• Licensed-market data — revenue and participation figures published by regulators or by recognized industry bodies, attributed and dated.
• Industry interviews — conversations with compliance professionals, game designers, and market-entry specialists, conducted on the record or on background according to the source’s preference.

We do not use player reviews, forum posts, or unverified leaks as standalone evidence for factual claims about an operator’s licensing status or market position. They may point us toward a story; they do not constitute the story.

How Coverage Is Structured

Each piece is assigned to one of the desk’s four beats — Global Trends, Regulatory & Policy, Culture & Design, or Country Data — and is structured to make the analytical claim explicit early. We do not bury the thesis. If a piece argues that a regulator’s new rule will push operators toward a specific design choice, that argument appears near the top, and the evidence follows.

Where a piece references an operator, we note the operator’s licensing jurisdiction as understood at the time of writing. If that licensing status is disputed or under review, we say that too. We do not present a license as settled when it is not.

Review And Update Cadence

Published pieces are reviewed on a rolling basis. Country Data notes are reviewed at least every six months, and sooner if a regulator in the relevant jurisdiction publishes a material change. Regulatory & Policy pieces are reviewed when the underlying regulation changes or when a consultation closes. Culture & Design pieces are reviewed less frequently but are checked if an operator referenced in the piece materially changes the product discussed.

Every page that states a licensing status, a regulatory position, or a market fact carries a visible “last reviewed” date. If you see a piece with a review date older than six months on a fast-moving jurisdiction, that is a flag, and we welcome you raising it with the desk.

Independence From Commercial Relationships

The desk earns commission on some outbound links. This is disclosed on the Affiliate Disclosure page. The editorial policy layer on top of that is simple: commercial relationships do not determine what we cover, what we conclude, or whether a given operator appears in a piece at all. An operator we have a commercial relationship with can be the subject of a critical analysis. An operator we have no relationship with can be the subject of a positive one. The decision is editorial, made by the editor, after the analysis is done.

Use Of AI And Drafting Tools

We do not publish AI-generated analysis. Drafting tools may be used for routine tasks — checking formatting, flagging broken links, or producing a summary for internal review — but the analytical content, the source selection, and the final wording are the work of the named editor. A piece published under Miles Martin’s byline was written by Miles Martin.

Corrections Summary

Errors happen. When they do, we correct them promptly, note the correction at the foot of the piece, and log the change. A correction is not silently rewriting history; the original error and the fix are both visible. Material corrections — a wrong license jurisdiction, a misstated regulatory deadline, a reversed analytical claim — get a dated correction note. Minor fixes — a typo, a broken link — are made without a formal note but are still logged internally.

If you believe something we published is wrong, the route to flag it is on the Correction Policy page. We take correction requests seriously, respond to them, and do not require a public fuss before we act. A clear, sourced email is enough.