App review - what we verified and what we could not

• Average withdrawal time Withdrawal windows vary by KYC status and payment method. We list the methods, not the time.
• Customer-support response time Support response times vary. We publish the method, not a time.
• Bonus code availability Bonus codes change. We mark the current status plainly.
• State-by-state availability State availability changes. We link to the platform’s own published list.

Every page on CricketChallenge is written by an editor and reviewed by a second editor. The first editor writes the draft; the second editor checks the sources, the dates and the tone. The review is logged. When the second editor approves the page, it moves to publication. If the second editor asks for revisions, the revisions are logged with the date and the rationale.

The first decision the desk makes for any page is what the page is for. A captaincy page is for a reader who needs to decide between two captain picks before the toss. A points-system page is for a reader who wants to understand what their platform rewards. A responsible-play page is for a reader who has decided to set a deposit limit. Each page has a single job. Pages that try to do two jobs at once tend to do both badly, so we keep each page focused on a single reader need.

The second decision is the evidence key. Every preview on the desk carries a confirmed / probable / unknown tag. Confirmed facts come from the captains' press conference, the playing-card announcement or the league office. Probable facts come from two independent sources or one named beat reporter. Unknown facts are those we cannot verify from any reliable source. We never publish the same confidence for an unverified rumour as for an official squad announcement. The evidence key is on the page; the rule is that the reader can see what kind of evidence we are relying on.

The third decision is the date. Every page carries a last-updated stamp. The stamp is the date the most recent editor reviewed the page. It is not the date the page was first published, and it is not the date the page was created. It is the date a human editor last reviewed the page for accuracy, sourcing and tone. If a reader sees a page with an old date stamp, they should treat the page as one that needs review.

The fourth decision is what we will not publish. We do not publish rumours as news. We do not publish a story that names a player without verifying the source. We do not publish an offer that we cannot verify against the platform's own page. We do not publish a piece of editorial coverage that has been paid for. Each rule is enforced by the desk, not by a separate compliance team. The editor who writes the piece is also the editor who decides whether it stays.

The fifth decision is what we publish when we are uncertain. When the editorial team does not have enough verified information to publish a story, we do not publish the story. When the editorial team has some information but not enough to confirm a fact, we publish the fact with the probable evidence key and we mark the date. When the editorial team has a confirmed fact that contradicts a previously published fact, we update the previously published fact and add a correction note.

The sixth decision is how we work with readers. If a reader writes in with a correction, we review the correction against the primary source and update the page if the correction holds. If a reader writes in with a story tip, we review the tip and decide whether the story is worth writing. If a reader writes in with an editorial enquiry, we reply within five working days. The contact page on this site is the working channel.

The seventh decision is how we maintain editorial independence. Where affiliate links are present on the site, the link is labelled 'Visit partner — affiliate link' and the affiliate disclosure is on the page. Where the partner programme would benefit from a piece of editorial coverage, the editor who writes the piece decides what the piece says. The partner programme does not see the draft before publication. The partner programme does not have a veto over the published piece.

These decisions are the editorial standard we hold ourselves to. They are not negotiable and they are not relaxable. The reader can hold us to them by reading the page, checking the date stamp, checking the evidence key, and writing to us when something is wrong. If you have read this far, you are probably the kind of reader we publish for.