Interpretation Boundary: RNG Audit Explained

Purpose

This page defines interpretation boundaries for statements that claim an RNG has been “audited” or is “provably fair.” It explains how to read RNG audit claims as references to specific artifacts and bounded test scopes, without implying guarantees, endorsements, certifications, or outcome correctness.

This page is descriptive and informational only and must not be interpreted as a guarantee, assurance, certification, endorsement, or system-wide security or fairness claim.

What “RNG Audit” Typically Refers To

“RNG audit” commonly refers to a review of some aspect of randomness generation, transformation, or reporting against a defined procedure or set of checks. The phrase is ambiguous unless the audited scope, evidence artifacts, and evaluation method are explicitly stated.

The term may refer to code review, statistical testing, reproducibility checks, configuration review, or documentation review. These activities are different and must not be treated as interchangeable. Examples listed here are non-exhaustive.

Interpretation Rules

Treat “audited RNG” as a claim about a bounded review scope and referenced artifacts, not as a claim that outcomes are fair, unpredictable, unbiased, or immune to manipulation.

Require explicit identification of: the RNG component under review, the reviewed version or time window, the test or review method, and the artifacts supporting the claim (reports, logs, hashes, signatures, or reproducible test outputs).

If scope, method, or artifacts are not specified, the claim must be treated as an unverifiable assertion rather than an evidence-backed statement.

What Evidence Can Exist

Evidence may include audit reports, reproducible test suites, versioned artifacts, signed attestations, hashes of reviewed materials, or public references to specific verification steps. These artifacts can support validation of what was reviewed and under what method.

Presence of such artifacts does not imply evidentiary sufficiency for fairness, randomness quality, security, legitimacy, compliance, or absence of manipulation.

Disallowed Inferences

Do not infer that an RNG audit proves fairness, unbiased outcomes, or randomness quality across all contexts, games, or time periods.

Do not infer that an audit implies regulatory compliance, certification status, endorsement, or platform-wide legitimacy.

Do not infer that “provable” or “audited” means secure against all attack classes, implementation bugs, operational mistakes, or insider behavior.

Do not infer that a report or attestation remains valid if versioning and time bounds are not explicit.

Common Failure Patterns

Treating the word “audit” as a universal guarantee without checking scope, method, version, and artifacts.

Confusing statistical tests with security guarantees or treating passing tests as proof against manipulation.

Assuming review of one component implies review of the entire outcome pipeline.

Using vague labels (“certified,” “verified,” “provably fair”) without referenced artifacts.

Boundary Conditions

Any RNG audit claim is bounded by the reviewed scope, reviewed version, and stated method. Changes in code, configuration, environment, or operational handling can invalidate conclusions outside that bound.

If critical inputs, mappings, or outcome selection steps are out of scope, the audit claim cannot be extended to those components.

Validation Checklist

Is the audited scope explicitly defined (component, version, time window)?

Is the review method stated and non-ambiguous?

Are supporting artifacts independently verifiable?

Are non-audited dependencies acknowledged?

Are guarantees, endorsements, and platform-wide conclusions explicitly excluded?

Non-Goals

This page does not certify any RNG, validate any specific implementation, or issue legitimacy verdicts. It does not recommend auditors or testing regimes.

For a catalog of audit-related artifacts and cross-page interpretation boundaries, see the Master Evidence Registry.