FortuneFlo
Change what happens to the money, not the game.
FortuneFlo explores what should happen after gambling risk is recognised: which intervention may be appropriate, when to act and how to evaluate what follows. The broader architecture is a development design; its full intervention catalogue is not implemented or validated.
BUILT FAKE-MONEY SIMULATOR · OPERATOR EFFECTIVENESS UNVALIDATEDThe implemented simulator explores money-handling as one intervention example, with a transaction record and balance reconciliation. Simulation can test defined behaviour; it cannot establish real-world harm reduction.
Built work, limits & the next proof question
Built in a separate internal development project: fake-money transactions, an event ledger and balance reconciliation. Historical development tests and simulations are internal evidence, not independent validation. No live casino, customer funds or operator data are connected to this demonstration.
One useful challenge: for an existing intervention, what evidence would distinguish a meaningful change from an imposed restriction or missing activity, and show whether further action is needed? The review must retain adverse outcomes and causal limits.
The next step is to agree proof criteria with relevant specialists, then assess data readiness and authorised shadow evaluation before considering any controlled prospective test. This is an evaluation route, not a claim of effectiveness, regulatory approval or endorsement. Public material excludes confidential decision rules and implementation detail.
