<p>Before comparing two entries, check what each source is capable of establishing. ETGAME keeps the subject, version and kind of evidence visible beside the claim. An even-looking layout does not make a studio overview equivalent to a documented rule in a named game.</p>

<h2>Attribute each field to an appropriate source</h2>
<p>Match the evidence to the question: organization details need organization evidence, and a rule needs material that describes that rule. Preserve a readable source title and the date of review. An overview can be a useful starting point, but it should not be relabelled as primary documentation. A concise record with a relevant source is easier to audit than a long list of references unrelated to the specific claim. Check each row for a matching level of evidence before comparing columns. A statement about a studio’s catalogue should not be placed opposite a game-specific rule as though they describe equivalent facts. Record the product, version and date next to the claim. If one side lacks that context, identify the missing field rather than treating it as a negative finding.</p>

<h2>Choose a common comparison structure</h2>
<p>A useful table might include the game title, version, stated mechanics, calculation units and source. Define each column before adding products so the fields keep the same meaning. If one profile supplies a maximum award and another supplies a theoretical return, those figures do not belong in a shared performance column. Add separate fields or leave the comparison unresolved until information of the same type is available. Start by identifying whether the statement concerns the studio or a particular game. Keep the exact product name and version in their own fields. This avoids extending a broad statement about an organization into unsupported details about every title in a catalog.</p>

<h2>Resolve conflicts through version and context</h2>
<p>Conflicting descriptions deserve a documented question, not an improvised answer. Compare the versions and context, and keep the original statements available for review. If the cause cannot be established, say that the discrepancy remains unresolved. Selecting a preferred figure would hide the disagreement; calculating a midpoint would invent a value that neither source supplied. For each material field, note a source title, its location and the date reviewed. Indicate whether the source is primary documentation or an editorial overview. A reference is useful only to the extent that it supports the claim beside it; unrelated links do not fill an evidence gap.</p>

<h2>Publish a reviewable summary</h2>
<p>If two sources disagree, retain their wording and context in separate notes. Do not remove the less convenient entry merely to produce a clean comparison. The worksheet can show which claims are documented and which remain unresolved. It is not a verification of a studio’s legal status, a ranking of game quality or evidence that one product offers a better return. Before using a summary, review whether its important fields can be checked and its uncertainties are still visible. ETGAME organizes studio and game information with related explanatory topics. Use those topics to form questions, then verify product-specific details against suitable documentation. A longer catalog entry is not automatically a stronger product, and a well-structured comparison is not a prediction of a player outcome.</p>
ETGAME game mechanics guide