Assess the complete identify, act and evaluate workflow, not a risk-score demonstration.
Test whether an intervention takes effect across the relevant customer systems.
Measure follow-up and changing indicators of harm, not just the number of alerts closed.
Procurement and operating analysis using British Gambling Commission remote customer-interaction guidance under SR Code 3.4.3. The legal examples are scoped to relevant Great Britain licensees; this is not a complete compliance assessment, medical diagnosis or assurance about any supplier’s effectiveness.
An end-to-end customer-interaction test matrix
| Case | Demonstration to request | Acceptance evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Missing input | Interrupt a relevant synthetic event stream | Data gap detected and assigned; absence is not silently treated as low risk |
| Strong indicator | Trigger an approved synthetic strong-indicator case | Timely protective action plus a case for individual manual review |
| Downstream failure | Make the intended restriction service unavailable | Failed application visible with an owned escalation and approved contingency |
| Marketing restriction | Apply a policy-approved restriction to a synthetic account | Affected campaigns and bonus journeys reflect the intended restriction |
| Customer challenge | Submit a test challenge to an automated decision | Accessible review route, authorised decision and preserved rationale |
| Follow-up needed | Add continued concerning behaviour after the initial action | Review recognises continuing risk and records the next authorised action |
| Supplier exit | Export a sample case with its action history | Readable chronology, references, decisions and appropriate access protection |
Thresholds, response times and final interventions must be defined for the applicable operation. Completing this matrix does not certify regulatory compliance or a reduction in gambling harm.
Turn relevant signals into a coverage map
Requirement 5 of the British guidance covers seven categories: spending level and patterns, time, gambling behaviour, customer contact, use of management tools and account indicators. It expects a range relevant to the customer and service, rather than a single universal monetary trigger. For procurement, map each relevant category to its originating system, delivery frequency, account identifier and receiving control. Record missing or delayed information explicitly. An attractive score cannot compensate for a support interaction or account event that never reaches the process being assessed.
Gambling Commission — Requirement 5: indicators of harm
Which signals are actually available for our products, and which are assumptions in the demonstration?
How does the system distinguish a genuine absence of events from a broken integration?
Specify action ownership before discussing automation
Requirement 9 calls for action proportionate to the indicators, including stronger action when needed, appropriate marketing or bonus restrictions, and refusal of service where necessary. It does not make a fixed sequence of mild messages suitable for every case. Translate the applicable policy into named decision owners and permitted actions. Ask who can act outside business hours and what happens when the usual case owner is absent. Treat a vendor’s proposed workflow as something to assess against your responsibilities, not as evidence that the responsibilities have transferred to the vendor.
Test automated protection together with human review
Under requirement 11, strong indicators as defined in the licensee’s processes require timely automated action, alongside manual review in each customer’s case and an opportunity to contest an automated decision affecting them. Buyers should therefore ask for both the action path and the review path. In a controlled test, establish which policy version triggered the action, what took effect, which reviewer received the case and how a challenge is recorded. A queue entry alone does not demonstrate that the intended protective action has happened.
Gambling Commission — Requirement 11: automated action and review
Follow an instruction into every affected system
Our proposed integration review follows a synthetic case from event ingestion through decision, case creation, customer communication and execution of the approved restriction. Include the relevant marketing, account and product systems instead of stopping at the supplier dashboard. Rehearse a dropped event, repeated instruction and unavailable downstream service. Record what remains enforced and who receives the exception. The goal is a clear operational account of the case: what was requested, what was applied, what failed and what is still awaiting an authorised decision.
Evaluate the customer outcome and the wider process
Requirement 12 addresses the effect of an individual interaction and whether further action is needed. Requirement 13 addresses the overall approach, including review of interaction records and evidence of effectiveness; reduction in indicators of harm is its key measure. Build the evidence model around those distinct questions. Record the observed situation, action, follow-up observation and rationale for the next decision. Do not equate an email opening, tool adoption or a closed ticket with reduced harm. Those events can inform a review without establishing its conclusion.
Use a fair evaluation set and expose uncertainty
When comparing vendors, use the same appropriately authorised, protected cases or realistic synthetic scenarios, with their limitations recorded. Include known positive cases, ambiguous cases and integration failures, not only examples selected by the supplier. Ask how a claimed detection rate was calculated, what the reference assessment was and which population it describes. Report missed cases and unnecessary escalations separately where they can be assessed reliably. A model confidence score is not a diagnosis. Never withhold required protections from customers to create a convenient comparison group.
Make records useful without spreading sensitive details
Our recommended case record joins event references, relevant observations, policy and model versions, action timestamps, execution acknowledgements, reviewer decisions and follow-up. Keep observed facts separate from inferred risk. Have the appropriate privacy and compliance owners define permitted access, retention and sharing; there is no universal retention period supplied by this checklist. Demonstrate what a support agent, specialist reviewer and system administrator can each see. Include an export test so that an audit or supplier change does not depend on screenshots or unrestricted copies of customer conversations.
Agree a go-live decision and continuing review
Use the matrix below to turn the demonstration into an acceptance record. The accountable operational owner should assess unresolved failures, workload, training and escalation coverage before launch. Ask for change notifications when input definitions, model versions or action integrations change, and identify the cases that must be retested. Monitor missing inputs, time to applied action, overdue reviews and follow-up completion together with appropriately assessed outcomes. No single dashboard establishes effectiveness; a useful buying decision names what was tested, what remains uncertain and who must revisit it.
Sources and scope
Procurement and operating analysis using British Gambling Commission remote customer-interaction guidance under SR Code 3.4.3. The legal examples are scoped to relevant Great Britain licensees; this is not a complete compliance assessment, medical diagnosis or assurance about any supplier’s effectiveness. Sources reviewed 2026-10-18; check the linked originals for later changes.
Gambling Commission — Requirement 5: indicators of harmGambling Commission — Requirement 9: proportionate actionGambling Commission — Requirement 11: automated action and reviewGambling Commission — Requirement 12: individual evaluationGambling Commission — Requirement 13: overall effectivenessCompare the same requirements across suppliers and record evidence, tests and unresolved gaps. The editable workbook starts with no supplier results or approvals.
Get the free supplier evaluation worksheetThis educational guide is independent, free to access and designed as a practical starting point. Regulatory and legal requirements should always be confirmed with the relevant authority and qualified advisers.
Our evidence methodology