Which sources we trust, and in what order
Not every source carries the same weight, so we work down a hierarchy. At the top sits the provider's own material. Nolimit City's game page is where we take the confirmed figures for San Quentin 2, because the studio publishes the RTP, the max win, the volatility label and the feature set there before anyone else repeats it. When the game itself shows a number, like the bonus-buy panel pricing the Lucky Draw at 740x, that in-game reading beats any second-hand write-up.
Below the provider come structured databases and game-data aggregators. We use them to corroborate a spec and to surface the reduced-RTP builds, since operators can ship San Quentin 2 at 94.03%, 92.11% or 87.13% while only the 96.13% default appears on the official page. When a database and the studio agree, we treat the fact as confirmed. When they diverge, we quote the studio and note the gap.
Affiliate copy comes last, and we treat it as a lead to check rather than a source to cite. That is where the fabrications live: an "Electric Chair Event" that does not exist, xNudge borrowed from the original game, a rounded RTP, an invented volatility score. If a claim appears only in affiliate material and nowhere in the provider's page or a structured database, we either verify it in the demo ourselves or we label it as not confirmed. Ownership facts get the same treatment: we cite Evolution, the parent that completed the Nolimit City acquisition in 2022, not the studio that some copy names by mistake.