This guide is for reviewers, compliance officers, and moderators tasked with validating completed FundedPlays evaluations. It maps each verification step to FundedPlays rule references and common audit controls so decisions are consistent, reproducible, and defensible. We focus on practical checks you can perform without legal interpretation, how to reconcile dashboard summaries with raw exports, and the evidence you must retain for appeals or regulatory review. When in doubt, defer to the Official Rules and follow the documented escalation process.

Use the Official Rules and Terms of Use as the primary authorities when judging evaluation outcomes.

Reproduce dashboard KPIs from raw exports and preserve a tamper-evident audit trail for disputes.

Escalate out-of-window picks, hedging evidence, and metric mismatches that affect pass or fail decisions.

What a completed FundedPlays evaluation is and why careful review matters

A completed evaluation on the FundedPlays platform represents the result of a structured, skill-based challenge in which a participant used a virtual bankroll to make sports predictions under defined rules. Reviewers should treat the Official Rules and the Terms of Use as the primary authorities when assessing an outcome and avoid replacing textual rules with informal interpretations, because those documents set eligibility windows, prohibited conduct, and reward conditions that determine pass or fail Official Rules - FundedPlays.

Review the FundedPlays Challenges page for current evaluation requirements

Before you proceed, consult the Official Rules to confirm the current definitions of eligibility, timing, and prohibited conduct for the evaluation you are reviewing.

Open FundedPlays Challenges

FundedPlays evaluations are not a sportsbook or an investment product. They are skill-based challenges where performance is measured against rule-defined objectives while using simulated funds. That platform context matters because it changes which activities are permitted and which automatically disqualify a candidate under the Official Rules Terms of Use - FundedPlays. See the Funded Plays homepage.

Careful review protects fairness for participants and helps the platform meet applicable promotional and recordkeeping obligations when rewards are issued. A rigorous, rule-first review reduces disputes, preserves audit evidence, and ensures outcomes are defensible if a participant requests further explanation.

At-a-glance review checklist: the quick pass/fail roadmap

Start your triage by confirming the evaluation window and that every selection falls inside it according to timestamps. If timestamps in the exported log place picks outside the declared window, flag the case for a detailed check and do not approve rewards until that is resolved Official Rules - FundedPlays.

Next, confirm the dashboard KPIs match exported logs for accuracy, ROI or yield, and the total number of selections. If simple reconciliation reproduces the dashboard summaries from the raw export, proceed. If not, capture the mismatch and escalate per the escalation workflow described below FAQ - FundedPlays. For broader context see our blog.

Quickly scan for obvious policy violations such as evidence of hedging, multi-account coordination, or automated activity that the rules prohibit. If you see these patterns, pause approval and move the review into a formal dispute track for investigation.

Key performance metrics to validate and how to calculate them

Reviewers must focus on the core metrics that determine evaluation results: accuracy or win rate, ROI or yield, the total number of selections, and any rule-defined risk controls like maximum drawdown and position sizing. These are usually the primary determinants of a pass or fail outcome Official Rules - FundedPlays. For a broader industry perspective see a prop firm evaluation guide The5ers article.

Measurements on the dashboard can differ from naive calculations. For example, FundedPlays may apply a platform-specific formula for ROI or treat voided events in a particular way. Always defer to the Official Rules for the exact formula and scoring treatment before deciding which calculation is authoritative FAQ - FundedPlays.

How should a reviewer verify that a completed FundedPlays evaluation meets the platform rules?

Verify the evaluation against the Official Rules and Terms of Use, reproduce KPIs from raw exports, confirm timestamps and risk controls, check identity and tax documentation, and escalate any discrepancies with complete evidence.

If you must reconcile two competing metrics, prioritize the metric the Official Rules identify as determinative for the challenge. Document the formula you used and note any differences between your line-by-line calculation and the dashboard summary.

How to Review a Completed FundedPlays Evaluation

Verifying timestamps and evaluation windows: timing is decisive

Close up of a CSV timestamp column under a magnifying glass highlighting data verification process for How to Review a Completed FundedPlays Evaluation on a Funded Plays branded dark navy background

Every review must validate that activity timestamps in exported logs align with the declared evaluation windows in the Official Rules. Start by exporting the full event log and comparing timestamps to the challenge window. If the platform records actions in a different timezone, convert timestamps consistently before comparison Official Rules - FundedPlays.

When matches are voided, postponed, or corrected by a data vendor, check the Official Rules for how those events are treated in scoring and apply that rule consistently. If a vendor correction changes an event result after the evaluation closed, follow the rulebook treatment for voids or post-close corrections and annotate the audit trail accordingly FAQ - FundedPlays.

If you encounter picks that appear outside the evaluation window, flag them immediately and hold any reward approval. Document your timestamp checks, include screenshots of the export, and record the conversion method you used so another reviewer can reproduce the steps.

Reviewing risk controls: drawdown, position sizing, and other rule limits

Funded Plays Challenges

Open FundedPlays Challenges

Risk controls are often the single largest cause of disqualification. Identify the maximum drawdown, per-selection sizing rules, and any stated position limits in the Official Rules, then reproduce those calculations from the exported activity log to ensure the participant stayed within limits Official Rules - FundedPlays.

Practical checks include rebuilding running equity curves from the exact order of selections, applying the platform formula for drawdown, and confirming that per-selection amounts never exceeded allowed percentages of the virtual bankroll. If the platform applied an automatic enforcement that differs from your exported evidence, record the difference and escalate.

Reconciling dashboard summaries with exported logs and raw records

Export the full CSV or raw event log for the evaluation and compare each selection row to the dashboard summary. Key fields to match are selection identifier, event timestamp, stake or selection size, odds or payout, and the recorded result. Reproduce KPI values by aggregating the same rows and formulas the Official Rules specify Official Rules - FundedPlays. See our blog post on how evaluations work here.

If dashboard numbers and exports disagree, capture screenshots of both and extract the raw CSV rows that show the discrepancy. Place those artifacts in the audit file and include a short note describing the mismatch and the reconciliation steps you performed. Keep both sources in tamper-evident storage as part of the chain of custody NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5.

Retain the exact formulas you used for each KPI in the review record so another analyst can reproduce the reconciliation from the stored exports. Reproducibility is central to resolving disputes and to any third-party review.

Flags, discrepancies, and the escalation workflow

Always escalate the following: picks recorded outside the evaluation window, evidence of hedging or multi-account coordination, and any mismatch between dashboard KPIs and raw exports that affects pass or fail thresholds. These issues require formal review and cannot be closed by a single reviewer without further evidence FAQ - FundedPlays.

record escalation items and key evidence

Issue type
Evidence file
Reviewer
Status
Date
Notes

Keep entries concise

When escalating, include a short written summary that cites the exact rule section you believe may have been breached, attach the raw exports and screenshots, and identify which calculations you ran. That packet forms the basis of a formal dispute and must be complete before referral to the compliance team.

Identity, eligibility, and reward verification before approving withdrawals

Before approving any performance-based reward or withdrawal, confirm identity and eligibility steps are complete according to the Terms of Use. The platform requires this verification to ensure rewards are issued to the qualified participant and that the account meets eligibility rules Terms of Use - FundedPlays.

Also check that any required tax or compliance documentation was collected and stored per platform policy and applicable promotions guidance. If the participant has not provided required forms or if identity verification is incomplete, hold payments and document the deficiency for remediation FTC guidance on promotions.

Suspend reward approval when identity, tax, or eligibility evidence is missing and notify the participant of the exact items needed to proceed. Record communications and dates in the audit trail so the platform can demonstrate good faith and compliance in case of an inquiry.

State-level promotions and recordkeeping considerations reviewers should know

Some U.S. states impose additional rules for promotions and recordkeeping that affect how outcomes and prizes are substantiated. When a participant is located in a state with special requirements, reviewers should document the participant location and retain any additional artifacts the state may require FTC guidance on promotions.

For example, certain jurisdictions have specific disclosure and recordkeeping rules for game promotions that could affect prize issuance or required notices. If a reward is being issued to a participant in a state with unique rules, consult the legal or compliance team and place the case on hold until the required records are confirmed Florida Statutes § 849.094.

Designing and preserving a tamper-evident audit trail

Create a minimal set of artifacts for every review: raw exports, dashboard screenshots, the adjudication memo, identity and tax evidence when relevant, and a record of who performed each step and when. Store these artifacts in write-once storage or a system that provides tamper evidence and access logs NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5.

Record the exact formulas used to reproduce KPI calculations and include those formulas in the audit package. When you reconcile timestamps or convert timezones, document the conversion method and the source timezone so another reviewer can reproduce the steps without ambiguity.

Vector tablet with checklist icons for export logs identity check and adjudication memo marked complete How to Review a Completed FundedPlays Evaluation

Maintain a clear chain of custody for every file you collect. Where possible, generate cryptographic hashes for exports and store those hashes alongside the artifacts. That practice makes the audit trail tamper-evident and supports dispute resolution.

Handling edge cases: voids, vendor data corrections, and ambiguous events

When an event is voided or a data vendor issues a correction, resolve scoring according to the Official Rules and document the vendor notice in the review record. Do not apply ad hoc treatments that are not supported by the rule text; consistent rule-first decisions protect both participants and the platform Official Rules - FundedPlays.

If the Official Rules do not explicitly cover a narrow edge case, escalate for a written interpretation from the compliance team and record the final guidance with the exact rule citation and rationale. The interpretive memo must be included in the audit packet so later reviewers see the precedent and reasoning FAQ - FundedPlays.

Decision framework: passing, failing, or opening a dispute

Map evidence categories to outcomes with a simple decision matrix. An unconditional pass requires complete identity verification, KPIs that meet the challenge thresholds under the Official Rules, and no policy violations discovered in the audit. Cite the rule sections you applied in the adjudication memo Official Rules - FundedPlays.

An automatic fail is appropriate when the exported evidence shows a clear and textually supported breach of the rules, such as exceeding maximum drawdown or evidence of prohibited hedging. If you cannot reproduce dashboard KPIs because of missing or corrupted exports, open a dispute rather than issuing a pass or fail.

Keep adjudication memos short and structured. Include these headings: Case summary, Evidence attached, Rules applied with section citations, Calculations performed, Decision and rationale, Next steps. Attach the exports and screenshots referenced in the memo so a third party can verify your work.

Common reviewer mistakes and how to avoid them

Frequent errors include trusting dashboard summaries without reconciliation, failing to export raw logs, omitting screenshots, and skipping identity checks. These habits make disputes harder to resolve and increase the risk of incorrect approvals FAQ - FundedPlays. See a concise trading rules reference here.

Quick safeguards are effective: always export raw logs before you trust a dashboard number, time-box your reconciliation steps to avoid analysis paralysis, and use a two-person review for any decision that could materially affect reward issuance. Rely only on textual rules and avoid making new policy in the course of a single review.

Final checklist and next steps after the review

Before closing the audit, confirm identity and tax documentation are verified when rewards are involved, and record who approved the payment and when. Store the final adjudication memo with the exports, screenshots, and chain of custody documentation Terms of Use - FundedPlays.

For approved rewards, follow the platform payment hold and release process and notify participants with a concise, rule-cited explanation of the outcome. For disputes, follow the formal appeal steps in the Official Rules and keep the audit record open until the appeal is resolved Official Rules - FundedPlays.

What if dashboard KPIs and exported logs do not match?

Document the discrepancy, capture screenshots and raw CSV extracts, reproduce calculations line by line, and escalate per the platform dispute process if the mismatch affects pass or fail thresholds.

When should I hold a reward approval?

Hold approval if identity or tax documentation is incomplete, if picks fall outside the evaluation window, or if evidence of prohibited conduct exists until the issue is resolved.

How should I store review artifacts?

Store raw exports, screenshots, adjudication memos, and identity or tax evidence in tamper-evident storage with access logs and a recorded chain of custody.

A defensible review balances speed and rigor. Apply the rule-first approach, keep meticulous audit artifacts, and escalate clearly documented discrepancies. Doing so protects participants, supports fair outcomes, and reduces long-term disputes. If state-level questions or unusual edge cases arise, involve the compliance or legal team and include their written interpretation in the audit package before closing the file.