SlotRover publishes editorial content for UK slot players. The standards behind every review, every taxonomy decision, and every published claim are set out here in full. This is not a marketing document — it is the operating manual for how SlotRover produces editorial content, what we will and will not publish, and how readers can hold us accountable.
This policy applies to every page on SlotRover: individual slot reviews, theme and feature hub pages, provider profiles, attribute filters, the homepage, and every static editorial page. It applies equally to content produced by our human editors and to content where AI-assisted research is used in the drafting workflow (disclosed in full below).
Editorial Independence
SlotRover maintains a strict editorial firewall between commercial functions (affiliate partnerships, casino bonus listings) and editorial functions (slot reviews, RoverScore framework, hub taxonomy).
RoverScores are not for sale
No slot provider, casino operator, or commercial partner can pay to improve a RoverScore, to feature in a particular editorial position, or to have a negative review modified or removed. The catalogue ordering is determined entirely by the five-criteria methodology. The 14 featured providers on the Providers hub are selected on UKGC supply, UK market presence, and editorial relevance — not commercial arrangement.
Editorial decisions are made by editors
The Senior Slots Editor (Jon Pill) decides which slots are reviewed, which themes get coverage, and which mechanics deserve dedicated feature pages. The RTP & Volatility Analyst (Mark Gruetze) sets the methodology behind technical content. The Game Reviewer (Tony Sartori) executes individual slot reviews. None of these editorial decisions are influenced by commercial team input, sales team requests, or affiliate partner preferences.
Affiliate relationships are structurally separated
Where SlotRover earns affiliate commissions from UKGC-licensed casinos (in the "Where to Play" section of individual slot reviews and in the Top Casino Bonuses section on the homepage), those commercial sections are visually and structurally separated from editorial content. Affiliate placements never influence which slots are reviewed, how they are scored, or how the catalogue is ordered.
AI-Assisted Research Disclosure
SlotRover discloses, in full, the role of AI tools in our editorial workflow. This section is the disclosure referenced in Tony Sartori's author byline.
What AI tools are used for
The SlotRover editorial workflow uses AI-assisted research tools in three specific functions: (1) source consolidation — gathering developer documentation, public RTP records, and provider press material into a single working document for the human editor; (2) editorial drafting assistance — generating initial draft language for review sections that the human editor then revises, fact-checks, and approves; (3) cross-referencing and consistency checks — running automated comparisons across reviews to identify inconsistencies in scoring or taxonomy that the human editor then resolves.
What AI tools are not used for
AI tools do not autonomously publish content. They do not assign RoverScores. They do not make editorial scope decisions about which slots are reviewed or which providers are featured. They do not verify claims — every claim in a published review is verified by the human editor against its source before publication. They are research and drafting aids used under direct human editorial control.
Editorial accountability remains with named editors
Every published review on SlotRover is bylined to a named human editor (Jon Pill, Mark Gruetze, or Tony Sartori). Those editors are accountable for the published content regardless of which research or drafting tools were used during production. The byline is a real person taking real editorial responsibility — not a workflow attribution.
Fact-checking is mandatory
Every claim in a published review — RTP figures, max win numbers, mechanic descriptions, volatility classifications, heritage notes, provider attributions — is verified by a second SlotRover editor against the original source before the review goes live. AI-assisted drafting does not bypass this verification step. If a claim cannot be independently verified, it does not appear in published content.
Transparency by default
This disclosure is published openly. The use of AI-assisted research tools in our workflow is not concealed, minimised, or buried in fine print. UK readers, ASA and CAP, and the UKGC editorial framework all benefit from clear public disclosure of how editorial content is produced. SlotRover meets that standard.
Source Verification Standards
Every claim in a SlotRover review is attributable to a verifiable source. The hierarchy of source priority is published below.
- Developer documentation — for RTP figures, max win multipliers, mechanic descriptions, and feature specifications. We use the slot developer's own public material as the primary source. If a claim conflicts with developer documentation, the developer's published figure takes precedence in our review.
- UKGC and ASA regulatory records — for licensing claims, operator variant disclosures (RTS 6), GB stake cap calculations, and compliance-related framing. UK regulator material is the authoritative source for UK regulatory content.
- In-demo behavioural observation — for mechanic verification (does the slot actually behave as documented?), bonus round economics, and special symbol behaviour. Every slot is played in demo mode before review publication, and behavioural observations are documented as a secondary source.
- Publicly verifiable variance databases — for volatility classification when developer documentation is unavailable or insufficient. Where multiple public sources conflict, we document the discrepancy and assign the slot to the more conservative volatility band.
- Studio public material — for heritage claims, founding dates, provider headquarters, signature mechanics, and UK market history. Studio "About" pages, press releases, and verified Wikipedia entries are acceptable for non-technical heritage claims.
What we never use as a source
- Operator marketing copy (operators frequently misstate RTP, volatility, and mechanic details)
- Affiliate competitor sites (third-party affiliate sites are not authoritative sources)
- AI-generated content (AI tools assist with research consolidation but are never the source of a published claim)
- Anonymous forum posts or social media commentary
- Player anecdotes without verifiable context
Fact-Checking Process
Every published review on SlotRover passes through a structured fact-check before going live. The fact-check process follows four stages, in order:
- Stage 1 — Self-check by the writing editor. Before submitting a review for fact-check, the writing editor verifies every claim against its primary source. RTP figures are cross-referenced. Max win calculations are re-checked. Mechanic descriptions are confirmed against demo play. Source citations are recorded.
- Stage 2 — Technical fact-check by Mark Gruetze (RTP & Volatility Analyst). Every published review with quantitative claims (RTP, max win, volatility band, mechanic specifications) is reviewed by the RTP & Volatility Analyst. Errors in technical claims are corrected before publication.
- Stage 3 — Editorial fact-check by Jon Pill (Senior Slots Editor). Every published review is reviewed for editorial scope, consistency with the rest of the catalogue, accuracy of cross-references, and compliance with UKGC framing and CAP Code standards. Issues are returned to the writing editor for revision.
- Stage 4 — Publication and post-publication monitoring. Once a review passes both fact-check stages, it is published. Post-publication, the review is re-checked at minimum every 90 days (or sooner if a developer updates the slot or a UK regulatory change affects the framing).
Corrections Policy
When SlotRover gets something wrong, we correct it. The corrections policy is straightforward and applied consistently.
Reader-reported errors are reviewed within 7 days
If you spot an inaccuracy in a SlotRover review — incorrect RTP, wrong max win, misclassified volatility, error in mechanic description, broken citation, outdated information — contact us. We confirm receipt within 24 hours and investigate.
Confirmed errors are corrected promptly
Once an error is confirmed, the published review is updated within 48 hours. The correction is logged in the review's metadata (visible on every page as "Last updated: [date]"), and material corrections are noted explicitly at the top of the affected review with a brief explanation of what changed and why.
Material vs. minor corrections
A material correction is one that affects the slot's RoverScore, the headline RTP, the max win calculation, or any factual claim a reader would reasonably rely on when deciding whether to play a slot. Material corrections are flagged at the top of the affected review. Minor corrections (typos, broken external links, formatting inconsistencies) are made silently as part of routine maintenance.
Editorial review process
All corrections, material or minor, are logged internally. Patterns of corrections are reviewed quarterly to identify any systematic issues in the editorial workflow. If a systematic issue is identified, the methodology and source verification standards are updated to prevent recurrence.
Disputed claims
If a slot provider, operator, or third party disputes a published claim, we will investigate using our source verification standards. If the dispute is supported by verifiable evidence, the review is updated. If not, we publish our position with the sources we relied upon, and the disputing party is welcome to provide additional verifiable evidence for re-review.
Conflicts of Interest
SlotRover is owned by Molty, a UK-focused iGaming affiliate operator. Our editorial team works within a clear structural separation from commercial functions to manage potential conflicts.
Molty's commercial properties
SlotRover is one of several editorial properties operated by Molty in the UK iGaming affiliate market. Other Molty properties cover different commercial verticals. Editorial firewalls are maintained between SlotRover's slot-focused editorial team and the commercial operations supporting Molty's broader portfolio. Editors do not have visibility into commercial pipeline, partnership negotiations, or affiliate revenue attribution at the individual review level.
Affiliate partnerships
SlotRover has affiliate partnerships with multiple UKGC-licensed casino operators. These partnerships generate commissions when players register or deposit at the partner casino via a SlotRover affiliate link. The "Where to Play" section of every slot review surfaces these partner casinos. The Top Casino Bonuses section on the homepage features partner offers. In both cases, the editorial team that ranks slots, scores them, and produces the review content has no commercial relationship with these operators in their editorial role.
Editorial team commercial disclosures
Our three named editors (Jon Pill, Mark Gruetze, Tony Sartori) do not hold equity, contracts, or commercial relationships with any of the slot providers covered on SlotRover. They are paid SlotRover salaries (or contractor fees) for their editorial work. They are not paid for individual reviews, are not compensated based on the operator a review links to, and have no commercial incentive to publish favourable or unfavourable reviews.
Disclosure of any individual editor conflict
If an editor has a personal conflict of interest with a specific slot, provider, or operator (e.g. close personal connection, prior employment, financial interest), the conflict is disclosed in the affected review or the review is reassigned to a different editor.
Editorial Roles and Responsibilities
The three named editors on SlotRover have distinct, documented responsibilities.
Senior Slots Editor — Jon Pill
Owns editorial scope and direction. Final editorial authority on which slots are reviewed, which themes get coverage, which mechanics deserve feature pages, and how the catalogue is structured. Owns the editorial standards published on this page. Conducts the editorial fact-check (Stage 3) on every published review.
RTP & Volatility Analyst — Mark Gruetze
Owns the methodology underpinning the RoverScore framework. Sets the technical standards for RTP verification, volatility classification, max win calculations, and mechanic feature page content. Conducts the technical fact-check (Stage 2) on every published review with quantitative claims.
Game Reviewer — Tony Sartori
Owns the individual slot review catalogue. Plays every slot in demo mode, verifies mechanical claims, writes the published review, assigns the RoverScore against the five-criteria framework, and documents source citations. Reviews are then submitted to the two-stage fact-check process before publication.
Editorial responsibility chain
A published review is the responsibility of the writing editor (typically Tony Sartori) in collaboration with the fact-checking editors (Mark Gruetze and Jon Pill). All three editors are publicly accountable for content published under SlotRover's name. The chain of responsibility is documented in every review's byline metadata.
Affiliate Disclosure
SlotRover earns commissions from UKGC-licensed casino partnerships. These commissions fund the editorial operation but never influence editorial content. The full affiliate disclosure, including how affiliate income relates to editorial content production, is published on the dedicated Affiliate Disclosure page.
Read our full Affiliate Disclosure →
Updates to This Editorial Policy
This editorial policy is reviewed annually and updated as needed when the editorial workflow evolves, when UK regulatory frameworks change, when new editorial roles are added, or when material gaps are identified. Each update is dated. The current version was last updated in June 2026.
Significant changes to this policy are flagged at the top of the page for 30 days after the update, with a brief explanation of what changed. Minor changes (clarifying language, typos, formatting) are made silently.