We may earn a commission through these partner links. Demo funds are virtual; access and country eligibility depend on the platform terms. Disclosure
A broker’s FAQ, blog and agreement can publish different figures. A useful research process preserves the disagreement and investigates scope rather than quietly choosing the most attractive answer.
Classify the source before the number
A promotional starting amount, a general FAQ estimate and a contractual maximum can describe different things. Record each source’s date, entity, customer location, payment method and currency.
Do not assume the newest-looking page automatically overrides every older document. The document’s applicability and amendment rules matter as well as its publication date.
How to handle an earlier payment-policy comparison
An earlier research note compared Quotex’s public withdrawal estimate with a linked Payment Policy. The policy PDF could not be freshly retrieved during this update, so that comparison is not presented here as a newly verified current discrepancy.
A saved historical observation and a current source check need different labels. Re-obtain the applicable policy before relying on the earlier comparison for a new account decision. The Deriv example below uses two official pages retrieved during this review.
Build a discrepancy table
| Field | Source A | Source B |
|---|---|---|
| Document type | FAQ or marketing | Agreement or tariff |
| Entity | Exact named company | Exact named company |
| Scope | Region, method and product | Region, method and product |
| Claim | Exact figure and qualification | Exact figure and qualification |
| Date | Publication and checked date | Version and checked date |
Distinguish contradiction from different scope
A ten-unit minimum for one route and twenty units for another are not necessarily inconsistent. Two different amounts for the same route, region and time require further explanation.
Likewise, platform processing and receiving-bank settlement are different stages. A time estimate can look contradictory until its start and end events are identified.
Ask a question that can resolve the gap
Send the relevant source addresses and the exact account context through genuine support. Ask which rule applies, whether a document is outdated and where the current tariff or amended agreement can be found.
Keep the reply with its date and ticket reference. A private answer can clarify that account, but should not automatically be published as a universal rule for every customer.
Publish an honest conclusion
Use precise wording such as ‘the public documents differ; the account-specific limit requires confirmation’. Do not label an unresolved figure verified or hide the discrepancy in a footnote while using the favourable number in a ranking.
Research quality depends on how uncertainty is handled. A clear unresolved item is more useful than false precision.
A dated example from Deriv’s official MT5 pages
At the 25 October 2026 review, Deriv’s MT5 demo product page says the demo account does not expire. Its dedicated demo-duration help article says it stays active with use but is automatically deactivated after 30 days of inactivity, and that a new one can be created through the Deriv account.
A careful summary can preserve both statements: the product page gives a general duration claim, while the specific help article adds an inactivity condition. Do not turn the general wording into a promise of permanent account or history retention. This documentary comparison is not an independently tested result or a legal ruling about which document takes precedence.
Use a scope check before calling something a contradiction
- Match the company. A global brand can publish pages for several entities.
- Match the product. An options account and an MT5 account may have different rules.
- Match the route. Card, bank and cryptocurrency transactions can differ.
- Match the unit. Currency, percentage basis and calendar versus working days matter.
- Match the stage. Request review, payment dispatch and receiving credit are separate events.
- Match the date and version. Keep both the stated effective date and your checking date.
If those fields differ, explain the difference before treating the numbers as competing answers. If they match and the statements still cannot be reconciled, retain the discrepancy and seek a specific written clarification.
Two fictional timing examples
Different stages: a hypothetical FAQ says a request is reviewed within two working days, while a payment page estimates three additional days after dispatch. Those statements need not conflict because their clocks start at different events. Do not automatically add them unless the documents actually define them as sequential and applicable to the same transaction.
Same stage, different figures: imagine two documents give different minimum amounts for the same payment route, currency and account entity. Averaging the figures would create a third number that neither document supports. Check the current account-specific instruction and ask for the applicable tariff and version.
A discrepancy log that another reader can audit
| Record | What to preserve |
|---|---|
| Source identity | Page title, address, issuer and document type |
| Relevant statement | Exact figure with its conditions and units |
| Applicability | Entity, product, region and transaction method |
| Time context | Effective/version date and date checked |
| Clarification | Genuine support reply, ticket and linked updated document |
| Editorial result | Resolved scope difference or remaining uncertainty |
Save the original document before annotating a working copy. If a page later changes, record the new version separately. A current page can explain today’s claim without proving what a customer was shown at an earlier date.
How to phrase a useful support enquiry
Provide the two genuine source addresses and a short description of the account context, without sending passwords or authentication codes. Ask: “These documents state different conditions for this product and entity. Which condition applies to this account, what version supports it, and where can I obtain that document?”
A reply that merely says “follow the rules” does not answer the discrepancy. Keep the unresolved item visible. A specific reply can help, but do not present a private answer for one account as a published universal policy unless an applicable official document supports that broader conclusion.
When a source cannot be retrieved again
Distinguish a saved historical observation from a freshly checked statement. Record the retrieval limitation, retain the previous document if available and avoid assigning it a new verification date without actually inspecting it. Do not replace a missing policy with an partner page merely because the partner offers a convenient number.
A source hierarchy can guide research, but it cannot decide contractual precedence without the actual agreement and amendment provisions. The purpose is to show what each source supports, not to declare that every FAQ, screen or contract automatically overrides every other source.
Frequently asked questions
Should I always choose the newest date?
No. Applicability and version rules matter. An updated page for another entity may be irrelevant to the agreement being reviewed.
Does a live account screen settle the legal question?
It is useful evidence of what the interface currently offers, but it may not explain all contractual conditions. Preserve it alongside applicable terms.
Can I publish the more attractive number while waiting?
That would hide material uncertainty. Explain the unresolved difference instead, particularly for fees, limits and timing claims.
What if the difference affects an existing withdrawal?
Keep the request timeline and applicable documents, and ask through genuine support. Use our payment research hub to separate processing stages from receiving-bank settlement.
Original conceptual teaching visual. Figures, timings and documents shown are invented examples, not a broker test or current provider terms.
A. Illustrative documents side by side
Scope in this invented example: provider review only.
Scope in this invented example: payment-provider transit after approval.
These statements do not necessarily conflict: they describe different stages. Do not add them into a guaranteed deadline without checking units, start points, exclusions and whether the stages run sequentially.
B. Match the comparison before choosing a figure
A group brand can contain different contracting entities.
A card route and a crypto route may have different scope.
Preserve both dated source copies and ask for clarification if unresolved.
If the scope really matches and the figures still disagree, label the conflict unresolved. Do not silently select the more attractive number.
The quoted snippets are invented examples, not actual broker promises. Verify the applicable contract and official explanation; do not assume a help page or marketing claim overrides an agreement for a particular account.
Sources and research scope
Public-source review: 25 October 2026. Examples are illustrative. Documentary research does not represent funded-account testing. Rules must be checked against the current product, entity and customer location.
Related research
Source research ledger · Research methodology · Calculation tools
Risk: Fixed-outcome contracts can lose the entire stake. No chart pattern, calculator or demo result guarantees future returns.