Game Approval

Gaming compliance intelligence from submission to approval.

Open the demo

Reuse prior testing · Identify the gaps · Accelerate approval

Get approved without starting over.

Game Approval helps gaming manufacturers reuse existing compliance evidence, compare jurisdictional requirements, prepare stronger submissions, and reduce unnecessary testing and resubmission costs.

Know what needs testing before the lab tells you. Build a citation-backed supplemental scope without replacing independent lab, legal, or regulatory review.

Run the Nevada → New Jersey demoSee the business case

Submission intelligence

Nevada → New Jersey

Human review pending

Desert Fortune 1.0.3

Math M2.1 · Paytable PT-A · exact tested configuration

Reusable evidence

3

No new technical test

Documentation

3

Forms or attestations

Targeted testing

2

Defined procedures

Product change

1

Pending verification

Quote-ready outcome

Ask the lab to price the unresolved items—not rediscover the entire approval history.

Every conclusion linked to source evidence and regulatory text

Reuse prior compliance evidence

Map prior reports, signatures, PAR sheets, artwork, and tests to destination requirements.

Identify and price only the gaps

Give the lab a defined list of documentary, testing, and product-change items.

Prepare a stronger submission

Catch version, math, paytable, hash, and package mismatches before lab intake.

The commercial value

One platform for gaming compliance and jurisdictional approval.

This product does not control a laboratory’s pricing model or promise to lower its certification fee. It gives your team a defensible basis for asking the lab to scope and price the incremental work.

The credible outcome: lower total submission cost and less approval delay through evidence reuse, targeted supplemental testing, and fewer avoidable correction cycles.

The business case

Five ways to reduce total submission effort

The platform helps your team arrive with a clearer scope, a stronger evidence package, and fewer preventable defects.

01

Define the supplemental scope before requesting a quote

Replace an open-ended jurisdictional review with a documented list of gaps.

Instead of sending BMM a Nevada-approved game and asking for a full jurisdictional review, you deliver a mapped crosswalk that divides work into reusable evidence, documentation, testing, and product modifications.

Without the crosswalk

“What do we need for New Jersey?”

With the crosswalk

“Here are the applicable requirement differences. Some are already satisfied by existing evidence, some require targeted verification, and some may require a product change.”

02

Deliver an indexed evidence package

Reduce the time spent reconstructing what was already tested.

The expensive part is often not only testing. It is finding, confirming, and documenting prior work. Your package tells the lab which prior report section supports each requirement, which binary signature and PAR sheet apply, which software and math version were approved, which artwork and configuration were tested, and what evidence is still missing.

Example mapping

NJ §2.4 software authentication

  • — Existing evidence: Binary Signature Report BSR-2024-11847
  • — Exact executable hash mapped to the approved configuration
  • — Prior Nevada test-report section cited
  • — Proposed action: documentary confirmation only

That is billable review work you are trying to eliminate or reduce.

03

Request pricing against individual gaps

Make the quote easier to evaluate against the work requested.

Rather than accepting one large quote, ask BMM to price each unresolved item—and to identify any requirement not included in the crosswalk.

ItemRequested work
Software authenticationConfirm existing signature evidence
RNG seed disclosureReview supplemental documentation
Error recoveryRun one targeted test
Progressive configurationVerify approved parameter range
Meter digitsConfirm implementation before testing

Ask: “Please provide estimated hours and fees for each unresolved item and identify any additional requirement not included in the crosswalk.”

04

Prevent avoidable correction and retest cycles

Catch configuration and package defects before the lab does.

Submissions become expensive when BMM discovers mismatched software versions, incorrect math revisions, missing signature files, incomplete artwork, inconsistent paytables, missing jurisdiction-specific declarations, or undocumented configuration differences. Each discovery can produce questions, engineering changes, resubmission, and retesting. Avoiding one or two correction cycles can reduce total cost substantially—even when the initial lab fee is unchanged.

05

Keep manufacturer preparation with the manufacturer

Reserve independent lab time for work that requires independent verification.

Your internal team can prepare jurisdictional forms, product declarations, configuration manifests, evidence indexes, software-signature comparisons, cross-reference tables, cover letters, and document completeness checks. BMM still performs independent verification—but you avoid paying lab rates for work your system can produce.

Walk the Nevada → New Jersey workflow with a sample BMM approval package.

Create a product configuration, load the Desert Fortune Nevada package, generate a jurisdictional crosswalk, review AI drafts with citations, and export a submission package with executive summary, gap buckets, and supplemental test plan.

Sign in to the demo

AI-generated comparisons are decision-support tools only. They are not final regulatory or legal approval. Every conclusion requires human review, correction, approval, and audit history before use in a submission.