Hi there,
I believe I already explained the most important aspects - it's truly complex and focusing on each detail separately won't provide the logical answers; it's about the global picture. Let me try to give you the idea:
The Safety Index may change for different reasons within a short time period.
Some details in the review won't change unless complaints are closed as unresolved by any means: here come the "withheld winnings."
Please inspect the current state of complaints here:

https://casino.guru/complaints/all 👈
As you can see, not a single one is unresolved, which means there is no high amount withheld—that would mean the players were correct, but the casino rejected the payouts—that has never happened.
Aside from that, players tend to forget that this forum is mostly about complaining and 88 cases in total is pretty much nothing compared to the casino size. I understand some of you are now dealing with a complicated situation but it is nothing so unusual for a bigger international casino.
Getting back to the start: anytime the complaints are closed as unresolved, all black points will be counted; if the amount is high enough, the Safety Index will change.
Meanwhile, we are always in touch with casinos and the Safety Index may get higher just because the casino has applied more points from the Casino Guru Fair Gambling Codex into their terms. Which has always been the goal—to help casinos be more transparent and fair.
Yet it does not mean that the index won't drop if the majority of currently opened complaints will be closed as unresolved. Theory is one thing but my colleagues need to see the casino is able to use the fairness in concrete situations.
I agree it is weird, but in this case it was just a combination of two aspects; to judge the casino, I would wait for the complaints to be closed.
I also see the process is longer than usual and perhaps it's because of what I mentioned earlier - putting the Fair Gambling Codex from theoretical terms into concrete situations.
I understand your concerns, but I ask you to maintain objectivity. For example, having more than 11k open cases is not easy at all and if the casino struggles to understand our points, the mediators have to explain over again to increase the chance the complaint will be resolved. We do not aim to close complaints quickly just to punish casinos; we have always tried to resolve as many cases as possible. I imagine we both know it is primarily about patient communication.
Hope it helps and I certainly hope it will be over soon.
Edited by author 1 month ago
Automatic translation: