Four controlled case-record workflows

Four case types. One evidence discipline. Different authority at every outcome.

The suite helps teams select the right record before information is copied into the wrong form. Every workflow separates verified facts, reports, interpretations, limitations, actions, access, and approval while retaining department-specific privacy and decision boundaries.

Compare all case-record workflows Return to all 67 apps

Casino Incident & Evidence Workflow Suite

Choose the workflow by the case and the authority required

A table dispute, surveillance incident, compliance event, and guest complaint can share dates and evidence without being the same case. The correct workflow depends on who owns the record, what must be preserved, who may see it, and what outcome is authorized.

01Operational dispute record

Table Games Dispute Evidence Record

Primary reviewer: Table Games Manager or delegated shift authority
Use when: A table-game dispute requires a neutral timeline, claims separated from established facts, source references, preservation status, open questions, and an approved operational resolution.
Case question: What happened at the table, which statements and records support each point, what remains uncertain, and which manager has authority to resolve the operational dispute?
Core record: Game and table reference, time-ordered events, supervisor and dealer accounts, player claim, surveillance request, ratings, fills/credits, procedural references, preservation and custody notes.
Not for: Surveillance conclusions, legal findings, employee discipline, player exclusion, or deciding that an allegation is true.

Review workflow →Open single-user tool ↗

02Surveillance evidence record

Surveillance Incident Evidence Summary

Primary reviewer: Surveillance Manager or authorized management recipient
Use when: An incident requires restricted, source-attributable observations, a verified timeline, camera or system references, preservation controls, limitations, and controlled distribution.
Case question: Which observations are verified, what sources establish the timeline, what evidence is preserved, what cannot be concluded, and who may receive the summary?
Core record: Incident scope, people by role, video and system references, timeline events, verification status, evidence register, continuity, retention, access restrictions, open actions and reviewer approval.
Not for: Declaring guilt, making disciplinary or legal decisions, replacing original footage, or circulating sensitive observations beyond need-to-know recipients.

Review workflow →Open single-user tool ↗

03Compliance case record

Compliance Incident Record Structure

Primary reviewer: Compliance Manager, auditor, or authorized executive
Use when: A potential policy, control, AML/KYC, responsible-gaming, reporting, or regulatory event needs a controlled case record, requirement mapping, action ownership, escalation, and review status.
Case question: Which requirement or control may be affected, what verified facts exist, what evidence is missing, what immediate containment is justified, and which authority decides reporting and closure?
Core record: Case classification, applicable policy or requirement, source records, facts and allegations, control impact, risk, immediate measures, escalation, legal or regulator dependencies, remediation and closure evidence.
Not for: Legal advice, automatic breach determination, filing a regulator report without authorized review, or replacing the casino case-management and document-retention system.

Review workflow →Open single-user tool ↗

04Guest-resolution record

Guest Feedback Resolution Summary

Primary reviewer: Marketing, host, or guest-service department head
Use when: Guest feedback or a service complaint needs a factual summary, contact history, promised action, service-recovery decision, owner, deadline, approval, and confirmation of closure.
Case question: What did the guest report, what can be verified, what response has been promised, what recovery is authorized, and how will resolution and follow-up be confirmed?
Core record: Feedback source, guest contact preference and consent, service timeline, verified operational context, prior communications, approved recovery limits, owner, deadline, resolution note and follow-up status.
Not for: A surveillance investigation, formal compliance case, employee discipline, automatic compensation, or storing unnecessary personal or gaming information.

Review workflow →Open single-user tool ↗

Four controlled case-record workflows

One controlled evidence chain across four workflows

The suite uses a shared discipline without forcing different cases into one generic incident form.

1
Classify
Define the case type, scope, authority, urgency, access classification, and explicit exclusions.
2
Separate
Keep direct observation, reported information, verified fact, interpretation, allegation, limitation, and management judgment distinct.
3
Preserve
Reference original records, timestamps, owners, retention status, integrity, continuity, and access restrictions.
4
Review
Document open questions, conflicting evidence, privacy limits, required escalation, and the accountable reviewer.
5
Resolve and close
Record the approved outcome, actions, owners, deadlines, communication limits, closure basis, and follow-up review.

Human authority retained

Shared evidence and authority rules

These workflows organize records; they do not determine guilt, legal liability, regulatory breach, disciplinary action, compensation, or criminal intent.
Collect only information necessary for the defined case and restrict access according to casino policy, law, employment rules, and legal-hold requirements.
Preserve original source material outside the working summary. A copied note, AI draft, or manager summary is not the evidence original.
Authorized managers, compliance, surveillance, HR, legal counsel, or regulators retain all review, escalation, disclosure, and final-decision authority.

Casino Incident & Evidence Workflow Suite

Start with the case type—not with a generic incident form.

A useful first pilot chooses one recurring case, one approved evidence source, one accountable reviewer, one access rule, and one controlled closure decision.

Discuss a casino operations role Return to all 67 apps