SBCGS Standards Committee, conflict resolution round, November 1, 2026
About the members, in the record's own words
Note: this committee is composed of AI agents. Member names are seat names, not people. No human sat on this committee or cast any vote recorded here.
That is quoted from the record below, not written for this page. This record carries no description written by the Institute, because any description of it would have been written after reading it, and the records index states that a record's description is fixed before the record exists. Where that could not be done, none is published.
Provisions named in the prompt
sbcgs-2026-11-01-resolution-provisions.md lists, per seat, the provisions each seat was named in its instructions before the meeting. It is published instead of the persona prose, because the list is what a reader needs in order to tell a citation the seats were pointed at from one they found in the document, and the prose is not. It is the owning session's file, published unchanged.
sha256 3e9b6e15ace8b28a520fac00679aad2b3fac5e47403bb90603b36c60a17de777
Check your download
sha256 a65868549c16024705325b08df453742abe191418987a82ef491d3130d203266
That is the digest of the file published here. It lets you confirm your download matches what we served. It is not evidence that the record is unaltered, because we computed it. A reader who wants that needs the hash chain, which this record does not have.
sha256sum sbcgs-2026-11-01-resolution.md
shasum -a 256 sbcgs-2026-11-01-resolution.md
Download this record as the committee produced it, byte for byte. The page below is that file rendered for reading; the download is the file itself, which is the form to use if you want to check it against anything.
New to this? How the standards are made explains who sits on these committees and how a proposal becomes an amendment. The record follows in full, exactly as the committee produced it.
SBCGS Standards Committee: conflict resolution round
Date: 2026-11-01 Board: SBCGS Standards Committee
Note: this committee is composed of AI agents. Member names are seat names, not people. No human sat on this committee or cast any vote recorded here.
Resolving conflicts the chairs of the October 2026 sessions referred to the parent board. The Institute ruled on 2026-11-01 that the board settles its own conflicts and that an unresolved conflict fails, dropping every item in it. The share below is computed over seats that did not abstain, and the threshold is 51 percent.
SBCGS-M section 502(d), the charitable yield floor: two incompatible bases
Both passed. S007 keeps the twenty-five percent of GROSS GAMING REVENUE floor and tests it against a four-quarter average. S010 replaces that base entirely with a percentage of NET proceeds, and does not state what percentage or over what period. If S010 is drafted, the gross-revenue base that S007's averaging instruction operates on no longer exists in the text.
Options: A = S007 only: Amend SBCGS-M § 502(d) to state that the twenty-five percent charitable yield floor applies to the average of the four most recent completed quarters, rather than the aggregate of those quarters.; B = S010 only: Replace the floor in SBCGS-M § 502(d) with a requirement that computes charitable yield as the percentage of net proceeds (gross gaming revenue less all operating costs and prizes) applied to charity, rather than 25% of gross gaming revenue.
| Seat | Synthetic agent (not a person) | Choice | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| The Regulator | Adele Sandoval, SA | NEITHER | CHOICE: NEITHER - The standards conflict irreconcilably, as S007 relies on gross revenue averaging while S010 shifts to net proceeds without defining the percentage or timeframe, creating an enforceab |
| The Test Laboratory | Marcus Brennan, SA | A | CHOICE: A - S007's explicit averaging method provides a clear, measurable pass condition for the charitable yield floor, ensuring consistent testing and certification. |
| The Licensed Organization | Eileen Cortland, SA | A | CHOICE: A - [Amending to use a four-quarter average preserves the existing floor while making it more achievable for small organizations with irregular income patterns.] |
| The Player Advocate | Theodore Gilliam, SA | B | CHOICE: B - [Replacing the floor with net proceeds ensures the charity actually receives a share of what remains for players, preventing a situation where "gross revenue" is inflated by costs that nev |
| The Operator | Danny Sokolov, SA | A | CHOICE: A - S007's approach provides a clear, measurable baseline that avoids ambiguity and operational confusion, ensuring compliance without requiring changes to existing hardware or data systems. |
RESOLVED: A at 60.0% (threshold 51%).
SBCGS-T section 812(c), simulated plays: three mutually exclusive schemes
All three passed and all three rewrite the same subsection. The chair reports their schemes are mutually exclusive: a flat reduction, a tiered requirement keyed to the skill influence range, and a reduced count for a narrow skill influence range.
Options: A = S001 only: Amend SBCGS-T § 812(c) to reduce the number of simulated plays from ten million to one million, and adjust the confidence interval half width to one percentage point for configurations with a skill influence range of less than 10 percentage points, and to one-half of one percentage point for configurations with a skill; B = S004 only: Amend SBCGS-T § 812(c) to allow for a tiered simulation requirement based on the skill influence range, such that configurations with a skill influence range below 5 percentage points require no simulation, and those above 5 percentage points require simulation of not fewer than five million plays per configuration, wi; C = S013 only: Amend SBCGS-T § 812(c) to permit a reduced number of simulated plays (e.g., five million) for configurations with a skill influence range below 5 percentage points, with a confidence interval half width not exceeding 0.15 percentage points.
| Seat | Synthetic agent (not a person) | Choice | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| The Regulator | Adele Sandoval, SA | NEITHER | CHOICE: NEITHER - None of the options provide a mandatory, enforceable standard that can be applied to a specific operator on a specific day without relying on undefined terms or unestablished institu |
| The Test Laboratory | Marcus Brennan, SA | C | CHOICE: C - [Option C provides a clear, measurable pass condition based on skill influence range and confidence interval, allowing for a reasonable reduction in simulated plays while maintaining stati |
| The Licensed Organization | Eileen Cortland, SA | C | CHOICE: C - [Option C offers a balanced approach that reduces the simulation burden for low-skill-influence configurations while maintaining sufficient statistical rigor, making it more feasible for o |
| The Player Advocate | Theodore Gilliam, SA | B | CHOICE: B - We must accept the tiered reduction to zero simulations for negligible skill influence, because demanding millions of plays on configurations where chance dominates is a technicality that |
| The Operator | Danny Sokolov, SA | C | CHOICE: C - [Option C provides a clear, unambiguous reduction in simulation requirements for low-skill-influence configurations without eliminating simulation entirely, minimizing compliance costs whi |
RESOLVED: C at 60.0% (threshold 51%).
SBCGS-T section 815(e), the skill time cost test: two different operative texts
Both passed and both replace the same subsection. S006 restates the test as value returned per unit of time. S011 discards the ratio and imposes an absolute cap on elapsed time.
Options: A = S006 only: Amend SBCGS-T § 815(e) to require the skill time cost ratio to be stated as value returned per unit of time, rather than as a ratio of median times.; B = S011 only: In SBCGS-T § 815(e), replace "The skill time cost ratio does not exceed twenty" with "The median elapsed time required to complete a base play shall be stated in seconds, and the skill element shall not require more than two times that duration," and add: "Where a skill element is omitted because of this limit, the dev
| Seat | Synthetic agent (not a person) | Choice | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| The Regulator | Adele Sandoval, SA | NEITHER | CHOICE: NEITHER - The conflicting provisions cannot be reconciled without creating ambiguity or unenforceable obligations. |
| The Test Laboratory | Marcus Brennan, SA | A | CHOICE: A - S006 provides a measurable and consistent pass condition based on value per unit time, ensuring uniform evaluation across devices. |
| The Licensed Organization | Eileen Cortland, SA | A | CHOICE: A - The value returned per unit of time metric is more directly measurable and alignable with organizational reporting needs. |
| The Player Advocate | Theodore Gilliam, SA | A | CHOICE: A - [Requiring a stated value-per-time ratio forces the manufacturer to disclose whether the game is rigged against me before I spend my last dollar, whereas an absolute time cap can be easily |
| The Operator | Danny Sokolov, SA | A | CHOICE: A - S006 provides a clearer, more measurable standard that avoids ambiguity in enforcement and reduces compliance costs by focusing on value returned per unit of time. |
RESOLVED: A at 80.0% (threshold 51%).
SBCGS-T sections 815(d)(2) and 815(e): numerically incompatible as drafted
Both passed. The chair reports they can produce incompatible results: S011 caps how long a skill element may take relative to a base play, while S014 requires a prompt to stay visible for a fixed minimum period, which can exceed that cap.
Options: A = both, and the drafter reconciles the numbers: In SBCGS-T § 815(e), replace "The skill time cost ratio does not exceed twenty" with "The median elapsed time required to complete a base play shall be stated in seconds, WITH Clarify in SBCGS-T § 815(d)(2) that the prompt for a skill element must remain visible for at least fifteen seconds or the duration of the commit peri; B = S011 only: In SBCGS-T § 815(e), replace "The skill time cost ratio does not exceed twenty" with "The median elapsed time required to complete a base play shall be stated in seconds, and the skill element shall not require more than; C = S014 only: Clarify in SBCGS-T § 815(d)(2) that the prompt for a skill element must remain visible for at least fifteen seconds or the duration of the commit period, whichever is longer, and that the prompt must not be obscured by o
| Seat | Synthetic agent (not a person) | Choice | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| The Regulator | Adele Sandoval, SA | C | CHOICE: C - Clarifying S011 to ensure prompt visibility duration aligns with the commit period and avoids obscuring ensures enforceability and compatibility without requiring a nonexistent centralized |
| The Test Laboratory | Marcus Brennan, SA | C | CHOICE: C - Clarifying S014's visibility requirement ensures consistency with S011's time constraints without altering the core intent of either section. |
| The Licensed Organization | Eileen Cortland, SA | A | CHOICE: A - [This option directly addresses the numerical incompatibility by clarifying both sections to ensure they can coexist without contradiction.] |
| The Player Advocate | Theodore Gilliam, SA | NEITHER | CHOICE: NEITHER - If a prompt must stay visible for fifteen seconds to be effective, capping the total play time forces players to ignore the skill element entirely, rendering both protections useless |
| The Operator | Danny Sokolov, SA | B | CHOICE: B - S011 only ensures clarity and avoids costly ambiguity by limiting skill element duration without conflicting with S014's visibility requirements. |
UNRESOLVED or NEITHER at 40.0%: every item in this conflict FAILS and the standard keeps its current text.
SBCGS-M section 506(c)(3): two independent amendments to one subsection
Both passed, voted separately, and both amend the same subsection. S012 prohibits applying charitable proceeds to lobbying or advocacy and adds an annual disclosure duty. S015 expands the prohibition to political contributions.
Options: A = both, drafted as one combined subsection; B = S012 only: Add a new subsection to SBCGS-M § 506(c)(3) prohibiting the application of charitable proceeds to lobbying or advocacy related to covered products, and require the licensed organization to disclose annually the total amount spent on such ac; C = S015 only: In SBCGS-M § 506(c)(3), expand the prohibition on applying charitable proceeds to lobbying to include any use of charitable proceeds for political contributions or advocacy related to covered products, even if not explicitly labeled as such
| Seat | Synthetic agent (not a person) | Choice | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| The Regulator | Adele Sandoval, SA | A | CHOICE: A - Combining the amendments into one subsection ensures clarity, avoids conflicting obligations, and allocates a single, enforceable duty to the licensed organization to disclose all prohibit |
| The Test Laboratory | Marcus Brennan, SA | A | CHOICE: A - Combining the amendments into one subsection ensures clarity, avoids redundancy, and maintains the integrity of the prohibition while incorporating both requirements seamlessly. |
| The Licensed Organization | Eileen Cortland, SA | A | CHOICE: A - Combining the amendments into one subsection ensures clarity, avoids redundancy, and fully addresses both prohibitions and disclosure requirements in a single, coherent provision. |
| The Player Advocate | Theodore Gilliam, SA | A | CHOICE: A - Combining these prohibitions into one subsection ensures a single, clear disclosure duty that remains effective even if advocates try to evade the rule by shifting between charitable and p |
| The Operator | Danny Sokolov, SA | A | CHOICE: A - Combining both amendments into a single subsection avoids ambiguity and reduces compliance costs by providing a clear, unified prohibition and disclosure requirement. |
RESOLVED: A at 100.0% (threshold 51%).
SBCGS-M section 502(b): three items passed by sessions that did not hold SBCGS-M
Three items amend SBCGS-M section 502(b), and all three were passed in sessions reviewing a DIFFERENT document: the seats proposing and voting on them did not have the text of SBCGS-M in front of them. They also overlap: one allows reliance on operator documentation, one permits a simplified quarterly computation, one exempts organizations under $500,000 of gross gaming revenue.
Options: A = all three stand and the drafter combines them; B = they fail: a change to a provision the voting seats had not read should not reach the standard; C = only the sub-$500,000 reliance item stands: Insert the following text into SBCGS-M § 502(b): "Licensed organizations with annual gross gaming revenue below $500,000 may rely on the covered operator to provide a quarterly report that includes th
| Seat | Synthetic agent (not a person) | Choice | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| The Regulator | Adele Sandoval, SA | B | CHOICE: B - Changes to a provision should not be enacted without the voting seats having read the text they are amending. |
| The Test Laboratory | Marcus Brennan, SA | B | CHOICE: B - Changes to a provision should not be made without the voting seats having read the text of the provision. |
| The Licensed Organization | Eileen Cortland, SA | A | CHOICE: A - [Combining the items ensures clarity and coherence in the standard while addressing the practical needs of small organizations.] |
| The Player Advocate | Theodore Gilliam, SA | B | CHOICE: B - The standard cannot accept changes to a provision the voting seats never read, so all three overlapping items must fail to prevent evading protections or relying on unseen documentation. |
| The Operator | Danny Sokolov, SA | B | CHOICE: B - Changes to a provision should not be enacted without the voting seats having read the text they are amending. |
RESOLVED: B at 80.0% (threshold 51%).
Passed items that never stated their cross-document effect, as the mission required
The mission requires that an item moving the skill measures or the charitable yield say what it does to the other two documents, because the measures are defined in SBCGS-C, specified in SBCGS-T Part 810 and disclosed under SBCGS-M section 304, and yield is defined in SBCGS-C section 107, floored in SBCGS-M section 502 and computed in SBCGS-T section 843. Several passed items move those provisions and none states the consequence, and no passed item makes the conforming change. The chairs flagged this on all three documents.
Options: A = the items stand, and the three documents are left stating the measures inconsistently until a later session reconciles them; B = the items fail for not meeting the mission's own requirement, and the standards keep their current text; C = the items stand only where the moved provision is defined, and fail where the item changes a measure another document specifies or computes
| Seat | Synthetic agent (not a person) | Choice | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| The Regulator | Adele Sandoval, SA | B | CHOICE: B - The items fail because they move provisions without addressing their effect on other documents, violating the mission's requirement for consistency. |
| The Test Laboratory | Marcus Brennan, SA | C | CHOICE: C - [The items stand where the moved provision is defined, and fail where they alter a measure specified or computed in another document, ensuring consistency across the standard's interdepend |
| The Licensed Organization | Eileen Cortland, SA | B | CHOICE: B - The mission requires consistency across documents, and without conforming changes, the items fail to meet the standard's own requirements. |
| The Player Advocate | Theodore Gilliam, SA | B | CHOICE: B - If the standard allows inconsistent definitions to remain until later reconciliation, the core mission fails to protect anyone at the device in the moment they need clarity. |
| The Operator | Danny Sokolov, SA | A | CHOICE: A - [Leaving the items to be reconciled later avoids immediate inconsistency and allows for a more considered alignment of documents in a future session] |
RESOLVED: B at 60.0% (threshold 51%).