How reviews on spinaud.jp.net are written, fact-checked, corrected and kept current. This page is the public record of that process — so you can weigh the output against it.
Every review here has a named author with a real byline. The Spinaud Casino review is written by Lachlan Reed, who also runs the full two-week test cycle. The byline isn't decoration — if Lachlan didn't write a section, his name isn't on it.
We publish no anonymous reviews, no author-less aggregations, and no AI-drafted copy badged as human work. If a different contributor makes an editorial change — a small fix to a payments table, say — it's logged on the editorial side and flagged at the top of the affected section, not buried in CMS history.
Before a review goes live, every verifiable claim is re-checked against its live primary source: the licence number on the regulator's public register, the licensee's corporate name on the licence record, the bonus terms on the current cashier page, the provider claims in the actual lobby (not on a logo sheet supplied by the operator), and the payment list against the live deposit and withdrawal options.
Anything we can't source gets cut. If a line says "players have reported faster payouts on Friday afternoons" and the only backing is one context-free forum comment, it doesn't run. We'd rather publish with thinner detail than with detail we can't stand behind.
Figures from the two-week cycle — withdrawal timings, KYC turnaround, live-chat response minutes — are cross-checked against the saved screenshots and timestamp log. If the review states "PayID cleared in 2h 39min on a Monday", the screenshot and the bank SMS timestamp are in the editorial file. The method that produces those numbers is at how we test casinos.
The date at the top of the Spinaud review marks a real verification event — usually a re-check of bonus terms, payment rails and licence status. It isn't the CMS save date. If that date moves forward, something was re-tested or re-confirmed.
Scheduled re-testing runs every six months. Out-of-cycle re-tests fire when the operator changes something material: a new welcome bonus, an altered max-cashout cap, a dropped payment method, a shift in Curaçao licensing status (the LOK reform transition is watched closely). A reader emailing about factual drift — "the bonus terms don't match what you published" — also triggers an out-of-cycle re-check.
We don't rework last year's article and push the date forward as a "2026 update". Google penalises it, readers see straight through it, and it defeats the whole exercise.
When a factual error turns up — from us, a reader or the operator — the fix follows a set process. First the error is confirmed against a primary source. Then the text is updated. Then a short correction note goes at the top of the affected section with the original claim, the corrected claim and the date. The correction shows on the live page, not just in a changelog.
We don't quietly erase old claims. If the review first said "VIP cashback is 10%" and the real figure was 8%, the corrected line now reads as it should, and the note at the top says: "Correction, 15 June 2026: this section previously stated VIP cashback at 10%. The actual figure is 8%. The score has been adjusted accordingly."
Readers who want to flag a correction should email info. Typical turnaround on a confirmed factual correction is under 48 hours.
spinaud.jp.net carries affiliate links. When a reader clicks one and signs up, the site earns a commission. The affiliate disclosure page lays this out in full: what the commission is, how it flows, and the firm line between the commercial side and the editorial side.
Short version for this page: the commercial arrangement doesn't move the score, doesn't trim the cons list, and doesn't soften the opening paragraph that states the operator isn't Australian-licensed. If an affiliate account manager emails asking for "updated copy" that files off the rough edges, the answer is no. Those rough edges are why readers trust the review.
The scoring framework at how we rate casinos sets its weights in advance, independent of any operator — the structural reason the system can't be gamed after the fact to favour a partner.
Numbers are verifiable. When the review cites a number — a wagering multiplier, a withdrawal time, a title count — it comes from a source we can point to. Marketing promises from the operator are treated as marketing, not as fact.
Personal experience is labelled as personal. When the reviewer writes "the Bitcoin withdrawal cleared in 1h 14min", that's a first-person report of one specific test. It isn't put forward as a guarantee of the same outcome for every reader — individual times shift with network conditions, KYC status and the operator's processing queue.
Uncertainty is acknowledged. The Curaçao licensing regime is in transition. The LOK reform took effect on 24 December 2024 and the GCB is becoming the CGA. Where the regulatory answer isn't yet settled, the review says so — rather than a confident claim that gets retracted later.
We run no "top 10" casino lists — they reward whoever pays the steepest commission that quarter, not whoever runs the best operator. And we don't review casinos we haven't tested ourselves, because writing about a site from its marketing material is what everyone else already does.
We publish no paid placements badged as editorial. We accept no guest posts from affiliate agencies. And we publish no "review" content churned out by an AI and lightly edited by a human — if it's under the byline, a human wrote it from start to finish.
We steer clear of language that encourages problem gambling — "easy winnings", "guaranteed profits", "get rich playing pokies". Spot copy like that here and it's a bug; flagging it would be appreciated. Where we stand on player welfare is on the responsible gambling page.
