Self-Assessment Response Follow-Up
Responsible-gambling self-assessment tools let a player voluntarily answer questions about their own gambling behavior — how often they chase losses, how it affects their finances or mood — and a meaningful share of players who take the assessment are doing so because they already suspect something's wrong. When the tool's results just get logged with no structured follow-up, or worse, when a player who scores as at-risk gets nothing beyond a generic results screen, the operator has missed the clearest signal a player can give short of self-excluding outright, and that's both a real harm to the player and a documented gap the next regulator review will flag.
STARTING PRICE
From €299
Standard tier · Multi-step workflow with AI extraction/decisioning and 2-3 integrations.
Get a quote →Saves roughly 2-4 hrs/week of manual self-assessment result review and follow-up scheduling.
How the automation works
We route every self-assessment completion by its result band to the correct follow-up path — a low-risk result logs to the player's RG profile with no further action required, while a moderate or high-risk result triggers a defined follow-up sequence that always includes a human touchpoint, not just an automated resource link. For at-risk results, we check whether the player's account already carries other RG indicators (recent deposit-limit changes, session-length flags) to give the follow-up contact full context rather than a cold outreach, and the outreach itself — a trained RG team member reaching out, not a bot — is scheduled and tracked to completion. No account restriction, deposit limit, or self-exclusion is applied automatically based on the self-assessment result alone; those actions require either the player's own choice or a documented RG team decision following the human follow-up conversation.
Process flow
- 01
Self-assessment completed trigger
A player completes the self-assessment questionnaire, generating a result band (low, moderate, high risk) based on their answers.
- 02
Pull existing RG indicator context integration
For moderate or high-risk results, the player's account is checked for other existing RG indicators — deposit-limit changes, session-length patterns, prior support contacts — to give the follow-up full context.
- 03
Route by result band ai
Low-risk results are logged to the player's RG profile; moderate and high-risk results are routed into a defined follow-up sequence with escalating urgency by risk level.
- 04
Assign human follow-up contact output
For any moderate or high-risk result, a trained RG team member is assigned to make direct contact with the player — this step is never automated to a bot or a generic message alone.
- 05
Track follow-up to completion output
The follow-up contact attempt and outcome are tracked to completion, with escalation if the initial contact attempt doesn't reach the player, rather than the case going quiet after one unanswered message.
Inputs
- Self-assessment questionnaire responses and result band
- Existing player RG indicator history
- RG team contact assignment and availability
- Prior follow-up outcome history for the player
Outputs
- Result-band-routed follow-up queue
- Human contact assignment per at-risk result
- Follow-up outcome and completion log
- RG self-assessment engagement report
Works with
Prefer a fully custom build instead of an off-the-shelf integration? We scope both options during your free consultation — most jobs like this one work fine on standard connectors, but higher-volume or non-standard systems sometimes need bespoke API work, reflected in the complex tier.
Where this goes wrong if you get it wrong
- A player completing a self-assessment and scoring at-risk is giving the clearest voluntary signal an operator can get, and routing that result to an automated resource-link email instead of a real human follow-up treats the moment as a compliance checkbox rather than what it actually is — this specifically needs a trained person making contact, not a bot handling the highest-signal case in the whole RG toolkit.
- No account action — a deposit limit, a restriction, a self-exclusion — should be applied automatically from the self-assessment result alone, since the player took the assessment voluntarily and imposing an unrequested restriction based purely on a questionnaire score, without a conversation, can damage trust and discourage other players from ever taking the tool seriously.
- A follow-up contact attempt that goes unanswered and is then marked complete without escalation defeats the purpose of the follow-up — the tracking needs to treat a non-response as requiring a second attempt or an alternative contact method, not a closed case, especially for a high-risk result.
- Self-assessment results considered in isolation from other RG signals already on the account miss the fuller picture — a moderate-risk self-assessment score combined with a recent deposit-limit increase and a spike in session length is a materially different situation than the same self-assessment score alone, and the follow-up contact needs that combined context before reaching out.
Frequently asked questions
Does a high-risk self-assessment result automatically restrict the player's account?
No — no account restriction, deposit limit or self-exclusion is applied automatically from the result. Any account action requires either the player's own choice or a documented RG team decision made after human follow-up contact.
Who actually contacts a player with a concerning self-assessment result?
A trained responsible-gambling team member, not an automated message or bot — this specific step is intentionally kept human given how significant a voluntary at-risk self-assessment is as a signal.
What happens if the player doesn't respond to the follow-up contact attempt?
The case stays open and escalates to a second attempt or alternative contact method rather than being closed on an unanswered first outreach.
Does it consider other RG signals already on the player's account?
Yes — for moderate and high-risk results, existing indicators like recent deposit-limit changes or session-length flags are pulled in to give the human follow-up contact full context rather than treating the self-assessment score in isolation.