Why a directory's date differs from the day you read it
A recent visit to a source proves when you accessed it, not when all information in that source became current.
The distinction that matters
Maintain two dates: the source's own effective or snapshot date, and the date you retrieved it. Some pages show a publication date but no validity period. Do not substitute the retrieval date for a missing effective date. The distinction matters when an older page remains online unchanged or a cached copy is returned.
A worked example
You read a directory on 4 November, but its caption says the listing is accurate as of 1 September. Your note should preserve both dates. Writing only 'verified 4 November' could imply that every entry was reconfirmed that day. A third date, the date your own article changed, describes yet another event.
Your next steps
- Record the wording next to each date.
- Note when a source provides no date at all.
- Keep access, effective and article-update dates separate.
- Revisit the primary source before using an old record for a new decision.
Where this answer stops
There is no universal number of days after which every document becomes invalid. Northline's freshness limits are editorial controls, not regulatory deadlines. An expired local record calls for review rather than an automatic conclusion about the operator.
Sources & reading
Primary references support the factual context below. Explanations, worked examples and calculations are original Northline analysis. Read how we handle evidence.
- iGaming Ontario — regulated market directory
Primary directory. Its displayed snapshot date is historical. A reading date is not a fresh confirmation of every entry. OLG is described under a separate basis. Accessed ; source dated .
An editorial review date is not a new policy effective date. Always check the current source for operator-specific conditions.
Suggest a correction