CADi · Online gaming protection
Protect the player, the community and the game.
Connect alerts, investigations and actions to examine whether the response helped, who was missed and what it cost honest players.
A report arrives. A model raises a flag. Someone investigates and takes action. Your online gaming systems can record every step and still leave a difficult question: is anyone better protected?
Perhaps the harm continued. Perhaps the response came too late. Perhaps an honest player paid the price. Understanding which happened means following the evidence beyond the alert and the case closure.
CADi Player connects the evidence across an online gaming operator's existing protection systems, so a decision can be followed from the first warning to what happened afterwards.
It works across three protection lines. Care protects the player from their own harmful trajectory. Integrity protects the community from harmful players and coordinated networks. Game protection protects the game's shared economics from abuse.
Start with a decision you need to understand. Bring together the warning signs, investigation, policy, action and outcome. Examine how long harm remained unresolved, whether it returned and whether the response made life harder for honest players.
The intended case record brings together the signals, their sources and what was missing when the decision was made. Care, Integrity and game protection keep separate purposes and access rules.
Examine delays, recurring harm and the burden on honest players. Show where evidence is missing so a reassuring average cannot hide a group the system barely sees.
Bring the relevant policy, decision authority, reasoning and action into the review. The aim is an account another person can question and reconstruct from its evidence.
Follow the outcome and test possible explanations for the change. A closed case records an action; showing that the action helped needs further evidence.
For player-protection and safer-gaming teams: did we recognise a harmful trajectory and respond in time, with a proportionate intervention?
For integrity, security and live-operations teams: did the evidence justify review, and did our response protect the community without unfairly penalising legitimate players?
For fraud, risk and abuse-prevention teams: did we address coordinated account or promotion abuse without making honest participation harder?
CADi Player is powered by the CADi causal engine. Its role is to examine the decision and its consequences, with the model, assumptions and missing evidence open to scrutiny. A trace that can be checked is the starting point for that inquiry.
At a qualified HotPath deployment, CADi applies policy to determine whether automation is permitted, a named human is required or more evidence is needed. It decides who is authorised to decide, not what the intervention must be.
The CADi Causal Engine analyses an agreed history outside your live systems. Choose one protection question, bring the activity, signals, actions and available outcomes, and establish what they can support.
Take a one-way feed of new evidence and decisions. Evaluate whether the analysis helps your team and where evidence is missing while your systems continue to act.
Once qualified for the specific decision and protection line, your system asks CADi before a consequential player action. The deployment must demonstrate its authority before this stage is claimed.
Can the order of decisions reveal what an average hides? Our chess research explores that question within Integrity. It has produced reproducible anomaly evidence and tools for sealed, blind evaluation. The wider-population test did not qualify the model. Planned Isambard research will test whether longer histories make the signal more reliable; a separate partner evaluation will test whether it helps reviewers. The complete Player review journey and intervention benefits still need demonstration. An unusual pattern is not a finding of cheating, and this work does not validate Care or game protection. Explore the chess case study.
CADi is in production - its engines are live in the cloud - with nine UK patent applications pending. A specific Player protection line claims only the adoption stage it has actually reached; CADi never guarantees a safe outcome, regulatory compliance or regulatory endorsement.
Causal analysis runs on a declared model of the decision environment. Its conclusions depend on that model, the available evidence and explicit assumptions; estimates are analytical approximations. The engine has been tested against injected, synthetic and real ingested data. Claims of improved protection require validation against the specific deployment's real outcomes; that result is not assumed in advance.