Use of artificial intelligence

Purpose and scope

Automation can help structure, compare and check material, but outputs are not treated as sources and are tested before publication.

Assisted systems may help classify notes, compare structured fields and identify passages that need another check. They do not establish facts, and generated wording is not accepted as evidence.

How the policy works

Automated output is constrained by source registries, tests and export checks. If a claim cannot be traced or defended after review, it is removed rather than attributed to an artificial system.

Sources are weighted in a clear order: current official rules and product documentation first, then regulator or standards material where relevant, followed by credible independent reporting. Community discussion can reveal questions but is not sufficient proof on its own.

Volatile details are recorded with a verification date. When two sources conflict, the page states the conflict or withholds the claim until it can be resolved. Silence, an old screenshot or a copied summary is never presented as current confirmation.

Accountability and limits

PokerLume is produced by the PokerLume Editorial Team. The name identifies the publication workflow, not an invented individual expert or an unproven qualification. Pages describe checks actually encoded in sources, tests and export verification without promising universal review that cannot be demonstrated.

PokerLume distinguishes verifiable facts from interpretation. Product rules, prices, technical claims and offer terms are checked against dated public material wherever possible. Opinion explains why a fact may matter; it does not replace the fact or conceal uncertainty.