Most review sites build a score up from vague positives. We do the opposite. Every casino starts at 10.0 out of 10 and loses points for things we can document. Each deduction is published on the profile with its reason.
The ledger
| Finding | Penalty |
|---|---|
| No verified licence | −3.0 |
| Weak licence tier | −0.5 to −3.0 |
| Unfair clause — minor | −0.2 |
| Unfair clause — major | −0.6 |
| Unfair clause — predatory | −1.5 |
| (all clauses together, capped at) | −3.0 |
| Monthly withdrawal cap under $10,000 | −1.0 |
| Withdrawal cap $10,000 to $25,000 | −0.5 |
| Black points from cases, scaled to operator size | up to −4.0 |
| Each accepted external blacklisting | −1.0 (capped at −2.0) |
| An approved rep answering at least 80% of cases on time | +0.5 |
An active blacklisting caps the result at 2.0 and forces a Guilty verdict, regardless of the arithmetic above.
Casinos under common ownership pool their complaint record both ways, capped at ±1.5. A group's reputation is a group's reputation.
The one rule that makes it worth anything
No commercial field has a code path into this number. Whether an operator pays us, what it pays, and whether it advertises are all invisible to the engine. That is enforced in the codebase, not promised in a paragraph.
The only lever an operator has over its TrustAudit Index is conduct: fix the clause, raise the withdrawal limit, verify the licence, answer the cases. That is the whole list, and it is deliberately the whole list.
Every figure above is live in our methodology, and every penalty on every profile is shown with the finding that caused it.