Markets
The Philippines first. Wider Asia, the EU and LATAM on request.
A standard tells you what to test. A jurisdiction tells you how that standard is read, which declarations must accompany it, what the receiving laboratory asks for first and how long the queue is. We work in that second layer — because that is where lengthy, repeated submission iterations come from.
Philippines
What a submission has to carry
Our primary market is the Philippines — PAGCOR's domestic online frameworks and the accreditation regime that governs suppliers and gaming service providers. The table below is the evidence a submission is expected to stand on, and the places we most often see it fall short.
| Evidence area | What the submission has to carry | Where studios trip up |
|---|---|---|
| Game rules & help screens | Full rules of play, paytable, maximum win and the mandated player-information statements, in the form the player will actually see them. | Help text that contradicts the paytable, omits maximum win, or misstates line-pay direction. |
| Mathematics | Declared theoretical RTP with a component breakdown, plus paytable, reel strips and weight tables that reconcile to it exactly. | Component RTPs stated but never summed; buy-feature variants with a different return, undeclared. |
| RNG | Description of the generator with seeding, re-seeding, scaling and range mapping, and evidence of independence. | Scaling and range mapping left out entirely, so the path from raw output to reel stop is unproven. |
| Build control | Version, file inventory, hashes and signatures that match the binary actually submitted. | A hotfix landing after the pack was assembled, so the hash no longer matches. |
| Player protection | The session, limit and display behaviours required of the platform the game runs on. | Built last, or assumed to be the operator's problem rather than the game's. |
| Change control | A change log and delta analysis against any previously approved build. | Re-submitting an entire game where a scoped delta submission would have been accepted. |
| Standing & accreditation | Evidence that the supplier and the service provider hold current standing under the applicable regime. | Assuming last year's accreditation position still holds. |
Indicative, not a statement of current law. Requirements in this market have changed repeatedly in recent years; the operative rule set for your submission is confirmed directly with the regulator or the receiving laboratory before scope is fixed.
Multi-market strategy
Build the dossier once. Overlay it per jurisdiction.
Studios expanding across the region lose the most time re-doing work they have already done, in a slightly different shape, for the next market — and every re-do is another chance to get it wrong and pay for another evaluation. We set up a core evidence set that stays stable, and thin jurisdiction overlays that carry only what actually differs.
- Core — game description, math report, RNG statement, build manifest, simulation evidence
- Overlay — jurisdiction declarations, mandated screens, limits, local-language rules
- Delta control — one change log feeding every market, so versions never drift apart
- Sequencing — which market to submit to first, and why the order changes your total cost
What differs between jurisdictions
- Minimum and maximum theoretical RTP bands
- Maximum bet, maximum win and maximum loss-per-hour constraints
- Autoplay permission, limits and forced-stop conditions
- Session reminders, reality checks and mandatory break behaviour
- Spin speed, turbo and slam-stop restrictions
- Buy-feature permission — outright banned in some jurisdictions
- Display of clock, session duration and net position
- Local-language rules and information screens
- Data retention, logging and reporting obligations
Illustrative list of the dimensions that vary. Which of these apply, and at what values, is determined per submission.
Beyond our primary market
Our base is Asia, and we also assist clients across regulated markets in the EU and LATAM. Our method travels.
The Philippines is where we work day to day and where our judgement is worth paying for. Wherever your roadmap goes next, the method does not change — obtain the published rule set, build the requirement matrix, test against it, fix, and document. Name the regulator and we will scope it honestly, including telling you when a local specialist would serve you better.