Oregon / Legal position gauge

Elevated risk

Editorial assessment from Oregon-specific research—not legal approval. Licensed Oregon counsel must review before any deployment decision.

Why this rating?

Oregon defines a contest of chance as any contest, game, scheme, or device whose outcome depends in a material degree upon chance, even if skill is also a factor (ORS 167.117(6)). Gambling is staking or risking something of value upon that contest—or a future contingent event not under the person’s control—upon an understanding that someone will receive value if a certain outcome occurs (§ 167.117(7)). A November 13, 2025 Attorney General opinion reads “stakes or risks” to include paying for a chance to win, and treats private online slots, poker, and sports products as gambling (AG Op. No. 8297). Separately, an electrical device that awards credits, contains a credit-removal circuit, or simulates a casino game, bingo, or keno is a gray machine—possession is a Class C felony (§ 167.117(9); § 167.164). Video lottery terminals are a Lottery-only product (ORS 461.215–461.217); unauthorized terminals must be removed (ORS 167.166), and the Lottery is directed to staff undercover officers against gray machines (ORS 461.725). Promoting unlawful gambling is also a Class C felony (ORS 167.127). No reported Oregon decision has tested mandatory pre-reveal with exact monetary disclosure, genuine accept/decline, and no charge on decline. That untested timing distinction keeps the rating below high risk; the gray-machine felony, video-lottery exclusivity, and the 2025 AG reading keep it out of the moderate band.

This gauge also weighs that we identified no charges and no decided case in Oregon against a game that used a full-pool reveal together with mandatory pre-reveal. Banilla, Torch, and JD Prime used an optional viewer of the next assigned result after money was already on the machine. Café terminals paid first, then revealed. Those fact patterns are not this architecture and do not, by themselves, set the rating.

Scale: High risk → Elevated risk → Moderate risk → Unsettled → Moderately favorable → Favorable → Strong position. These are editorial categories, not probabilities of approval or findings of legality.

Source review date: . Has this exact model been tested? · Counsel checklist · Authorities

NCG GAMESOregon position brief
Oregon  /  Position brief

Credits that can be removed.
Oregon already calls that a gray machine.

ORS 167.117(9) defines a gray machine as an electrical device that awards credits or contains a circuit, meter, or switch capable of removing recorded credits—or that plays, emulates, or simulates a casino game, bingo, or keno. Possession is a Class C felony. Video lottery is the Oregon State Lottery’s exclusive video product. The NCG position is that those device rules never tested a transaction that discloses the exact monetary result before the player can commit funds. Oregon has not held whether that sequence is still “staking or risking” upon an unknown outcome under ORS 167.117(7).

Has this been tested? What remains for Oregon counsel
Working position

This brief analyzes the proposed transaction architecture under current Oregon law. It is not a finding of legality, Oregon State Lottery approval, Department of Justice charitable-gaming authorization, or permission to operate cash-prize devices. Unlawful gambling is anything “not specifically authorized by law.” Authorized channels include the state lottery, licensed charitable bingo/lotto/raffle/Monte Carlo events, local social games, pari-mutuel racing, and tribal compact gaming.

Oregon legal starting point

Oregon criminalizes promoting or profiting from unlawful gambling and separately felonizes possession of gray machines that award credits or simulate casino games.

ORS 167.117(6)–(7)

Material degree of chance—or a future contingent event

A contest of chance is any contest, game, scheme, or device whose outcome depends in a material degree upon chance, “notwithstanding that skill of the contestants may also be a factor.” Gambling is staking or risking something of value upon that contest or a future contingent event not under the person’s control, upon an agreement or understanding that someone will receive value if a certain outcome occurs.

ORS 167.117(8)–(9), (20)

Gray machines and slot machines are status offenses

Amusement devices that return only free additional plays are not gambling devices—except gray machines. A gray machine awards credits or contains a credit-removal circuit, or simulates a casino game, bingo, or keno. A device is no less a gray machine because it also delivers value on a basis other than chance. Slot machines are defined separately. Possession of a gray machine is a Class C felony.

ORS 167.117(7), 167.127; ch. 461

Unlawful unless specifically authorized

“Unlawful” means not specifically authorized by law. Statutory carve-outs include social games, licensed charitable bingo/lotto/raffle/Monte Carlo events, tightly limited token contests, and savings-promotion raffles. The Oregon State Lottery is exempt from the gambling laws. Promoting or profiting from unlawful gambling is a Class C felony.

Central timing question: ORS 167.117(7) asks whether the player stakes or risks value upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event. The NCG position is that at acceptance the accepted transaction’s monetary result is already fixed and disclosed—so the player is not risking value upon an unresolved outcome. Oregon has not held whether that sequence escapes § 167.117(7). A separate question—often the harder one—is whether a credit-awarding, casino-simulating cabinet is a gray machine under § 167.117(9) even if the transaction timing argument is accepted.

Safeguard 1

Exact cost and result are known before acceptance.

Before the player becomes financially committed to a transaction, the system discloses the exact transaction cost and exact monetary result. Accept processes only those disclosed terms.

Why this matters under Oregon law

§ 167.117(7) requires staking or risking value upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event. If the economic outcome is already fixed and disclosed before Accept, the strongest NCG argument is that the player is not exposing value to an adverse chance on that transaction—they are accepting a disclosed, predetermined exchange whose result is already known.

Contrary authority

Opinion 8297 reads “stake or risk” to include paying for a chance to win, and treats the statutory lottery definition—pay for chances, winning chances designated by drawing or some other method—as context. Prosecutors will argue casino-style presentation still frames each session as a contest whose benefit depends in a material degree upon chance from the player’s chair, including which offer appears next.

Implementation risk

Weakening factors: showing cost/result after partial payment, allowing acceptance before disclosure renders, or mismatch between displayed and settled amounts. Any of those would collapse the timing distinction and leave the activity inside the pay-for-chances pattern Opinion 8297 describes.

ORS 167.117(7)Timing of the stake is critical
Safeguard 2

Viewing the offer does not require payment.

The player may see the disclosed offer—including zero or negative-net outcomes—without paying for that transaction. Declining imposes no charge for that offer.

Why timing of consideration matters

Opinion 8297’s examples involve customers who select an amount to wager before the sporting event, fantasy result, or slot outcome is known. NCG separates inspection from commitment: no consideration moves for a declined offer. That is the factual distinction the 2025 opinion did not have.

Contrary authority

Prosecutors may argue the player purchased access to a sequence of offers by earlier deposit, and that each Accept still “risks” credits. ORS 646A.803 treats a sweepstakes as a chance-based prize procedure and requires a clear no-purchase entry path in solicitations; it is a consumer-protection statute, not a gambling exemption. A nominally free path that is not genuine will not sanitize paid play, and 646A.803 is not a license to operate cash-prize cabinets.

ORS 646A.803No payment on decline
Safeguard 3

Monetary results and reel positions are predetermined.

Monetary outcomes are fixed before acceptance within a finite predetermined pool. Reels, symbols, and entertainment layers cannot modify the disclosed monetary result after acceptance.

Distinction from Oregon authorities

Oregon’s published cases and the 2025 AG opinion address staking upon unknown sporting results, house-banked card rooms, cash payoffs for free-play machines, and private online slots. None of those opinions turns on a mandatory pre-reveal of the exact monetary result. NCG’s distinction is not predetermination alone—it is predetermination plus disclosure before financial commitment plus a free decline.

Gray-machine and slot-machine problem

§ 167.117(9)(a)(A) reaches a device that awards credits or contains a circuit, meter, or switch capable of removing or recording the removal of credits earned by a player, other than removal during continuous play. Paragraph (B) reaches a device that plays, emulates, or simulates a casino game, bingo, or keno. Paragraph (b) says a device is no less a gray machine because it may also sell or deliver value on a basis other than chance. A slot machine, separately, is a gambling device that, after insertion of a coin or other object, may entitle the player to value “depending upon elements of chance” (§ 167.117(20)). Casino-style reels plus a credit meter invite both theories.

Video lottery exclusivity

ORS 461.215–461.217 authorize video lottery games only through Lottery retailers, generally on OLCC-licensed premises posted as closed to minors. ORS 167.166 requires removal of any video lottery terminal not authorized by the Lottery Commission. Article XV, section 4 of the Oregon Constitution created the State Lottery and, for lottery games using computer terminals, forbids dispensing coins or currency directly to players from those devices. A private cabinet that looks like a video lottery terminal will be compared to that reserved channel—labels will not control.

ORS 167.117(9)ORS 461.215
Safeguard 4

The player may stop and redeem—including cents.

Eligible remaining credits may be redeemed without further play. Redemption includes fractional dollars; balances are not rounded down to trap value in the machine.

Effect on Oregon analysis

Full redemption supports the argument that only accepted transactions consume value and that the player retains a genuine exit. It may mitigate “trapped balance” or forced-continued-play theories. It does not take a credit-removal circuit outside § 167.117(9)(a)(A). The gray-machine definition is triggered in part by the capacity to remove recorded credits other than during continuous play.

Limitation

Redemption does not cure an otherwise unlawful gambling transaction or a gray-machine status offense. Gambling devices are public nuisances subject to summary seizure (ORS 167.162). Gray machines are forfeitable only after judgment under ORS chapter 131A or ORS 131.550–131.600. Lottery prizes drawn in an unlawful lottery are forfeited to the county (ORS 167.158).

ILLUSTRATIVE CASH-OUT

$22.00 ticket+$0.67 cents→$0.00 remaining
ORS 167.162Exit rights ≠ legality
Safeguard 5

Software enforces non-bypassable rules.

Mandatory pre-reveal, accept/decline, no post-acceptance RNG, predetermined reels, and redemption rules are architecturally enforced—not merely published as disclaimers.

Why enforcement matters in Oregon

Oregon device and promotion cases turn on actual mechanics and how the premises were used—not marketing labels. State v. Langan asked what the legislature included or excluded in the device definition, not what patrons commonly called gambling. Oregon Racing, Inc. v. Oregon State Lottery rejected a social-game characterization where the house exchanged chips and collected door fees. Software enforcement is how the timing distinction can be proved if charges are brought under §§ 167.122–167.164 or civilly through Lottery, OLCC, or forfeiture processes.

Implementation risks

Alternate clients, debug modes, stale-offer acceptance, or server paths that charge on preview would collapse the timing distinction and expose operators to Class C felony promotion (§ 167.127), Class C felony gray-machine possession (§ 167.164), Class A misdemeanor device possession (§ 167.147) and player gambling (§ 167.122), internet-gambling payment offenses if funds are accepted online (§ 167.109), seizure, and forfeiture. Casino-style presentation without the enforced accept/decline sequence is the fact pattern Opinion 8297 already treats as gambling when privately offered.

ORS 167.127Engineering ≠ statutory permission
Required analysis

Has this exact model been tested in Oregon?

We did not identify a reported appellate decision in Oregon directly testing this complete transaction architecture—mandatory pre-reveal, exact monetary disclosure before financial commitment, genuine accept/decline with no charge on decline, no post-acceptance randomness, finite predetermined pool, predetermined reels, software-enforced safeguards, and cent-level redemption.

What Oregon courts and agencies have addressed—and how those systems differ

  • State v. Coats, 158 Or 122, 74 P2d 1102 (1938) — Binding Supreme Court lottery case. Pinball scheme held a lottery where chance predominated and player skill had no appreciable effect; prize, chance, and consideration stated as the common-law elements. Partially analogous on chance analysis and the three-element lottery formula. Materially distinguishable: mechanical pay-to-play with unknown result; predates the 1971 Code’s material-degree definition and does not address pre-reveal accept/decline.
  • State v. Langan, 293 Or 654, 652 P2d 800 (1982) — Binding. Free-play electric game machines were not “gambling devices” under the then-current amusement-device sentence even though the tavern paid cash for accumulated free plays; promoting-gambling knowledge goes to the facts that make the gambling unlawful. The amusement-device exclusion now reads “other than gray machines.” Partially analogous on close reading of device definitions. Materially distinguishable: 1982 statute had no gray-machine felony; NCG cash-credit cabinets are the opposite of “returns only free additional games.”
  • Oregon Racing, Inc. v. Oregon State Lottery, 310 Or App 281, 485 P3d 912 (2021) — Published. Chip exchange was a “house bank”; poker-room door fees were “house income”; social-game exception failed; Lottery declaratory ruling affirmed. Not applicable as a test of NCG pre-reveal mechanics. Partially analogous on how narrowly Oregon reads house-benefit exceptions when a commercial operator wants to sit next to video lottery.
  • State v. Johnston, 56 Or App 849, 643 P2d 666, rev den, 293 Or 174 (1982) — Charitable/fraternal bingo exception failed where chapter members were paid a daily wage to assist; the legislature’s concern was outsiders taking over charitable games for profit. Not applicable to NCG architecture; confirms charitable games are a licensed, tightly policed exception—not a private retail path.
  • State v. Hansen, 108 Or App 609, 816 P2d 706 (1991) — Club employees receiving tips from poker meant the games were not social games. Not applicable to pre-reveal mechanics; confirms house-income limits.
  • State v. Wright, 21 Or App 659, 537 P2d 130 (1975) — Cash payoffs on free-play pinball; Court of Appeals treated the machines as seizable gambling devices. Langan later rejected that device holding. Not applicable as current device law; historical only.
  • Oregon Attorney General Opinion No. 8297 (Nov. 13, 2025) — Formal opinion to the Oregon State Lottery. Private websites offering sports betting, fantasy sports, e-sports betting, or online poker/blackjack/slots constitute “gambling” under ORS 167.117(7). “Stakes or risks” includes paying for a chance to win. Technology does not change the analysis. AG opinions are not binding precedent. Partially analogous on the breadth of § 167.117(7) and on private slot products. Materially distinguishable: the opinion’s hypotheticals involve staking before the relevant outcome is known; it does not analyze mandatory pre-reveal with a no-charge decline.
  • Oregon Attorney General Opinion OP-2010-1 (Jan. 21, 2010) — Social-game “between players” and no-house-bank/house-income requirements. Not applicable to NCG; NCG is not a player-versus-player social game.
  • ORS 646A.803 sweepstakes solicitations — Consumer-protection disclosures (odds, sponsor, no-purchase entry) and bans on false “you have won” claims. Not applicable as a judicial test of NCG architecture and not a gambling-law exemption for cash-prize terminals.

Enforcement and regulatory activity (not judicial approval)

The Oregon State Lottery is directed to employ or contract for at least three undercover officers to enforce the gray-machine prohibition (ORS 461.725). Unauthorized video lottery terminals must be removed (ORS 167.166). Charitable bingo, lotto, raffle, and Monte Carlo events are licensed and policed by the Department of Justice under ORS 167.118 and chapter 464. We did not identify an Attorney General opinion specifically approving mandatory pre-reveal, accept/decline, cash-redemption terminals. Absence of a decision testing this complete architecture is not a judicial determination of legality.

Critical distinction

“No reported Oregon decision directly testing this architecture” is materially different from “An Oregon court has ruled this architecture legal.” Neither statement has been found true here. The closest published analogues are adverse on pay-for-unknown-outcome products (Coats; Opinion 8297) and on commercial exceptions (Oregon Racing; Johnston). The closest statutory analogue for the cabinet itself is the gray-machine definition.

No direct Oregon appellate precedent identified
Strongest contrary arguments

What Oregon prosecutors and the Lottery could argue.

1. Gray-machine status does not wait for a spin

§ 167.117(9) looks at whether the device awards credits, contains a credit-removal circuit, or simulates a casino game, bingo, or keno. Paragraph (b) says delivery of value “on the basis other than chance” does not save it. A prosecutor can charge the Class C felony in § 167.164 without first winning the § 167.117(7) timing argument.

2. Video lottery is already the state’s video product

ORS 461.215–461.217 and 167.166 reserve video lottery terminals to the Lottery. Article XV, section 4 created that monopoly and forbids coin-dispensing lottery terminals. A reel cabinet with a bill acceptor in an OLCC room will be investigated as an unauthorized video lottery device or a gray machine, regardless of backend predetermination.

3. Opinion 8297 reads “stakes or risks” broadly

The November 2025 opinion treats paying for a chance to win as staking, cites the lottery definition (pay for chances; winning chances designated by drawing or some other method), and says traditional slots do not cease to be gambling when offered with modern technology. Counsel should assume Lottery and DOJ will quote that opinion even though it is not a judicial holding and did not analyze pre-reveal accept/decline.

4. Material-degree chance and future contingent events

§ 167.117(6) does not require chance as the sole factor. Sequence uncertainty—which offer appears next—can be framed as a material degree of chance or as a future contingent event not under the player’s control. Skill, predetermination, and entertainment-layer arguments do not, standing alone, defeat that text.

5. Promotion and gray-machine possession are both Class C felonies

§ 167.127 (promoting or profiting from unlawful gambling) and § 167.164 (gray-machine possession) are Class C felonies. Player participation is a Class A misdemeanor (§ 167.122). Slot-machine or gambling-device possession is a Class A misdemeanor (§ 167.147). Internet acceptance of credit cards or transfers for unlawful internet gambling is a Class C felony (§ 167.109). Devices are nuisances (§ 167.162).

6. Session-wide staking and credit balances

Money inserted upfront creates a continuing credit balance. Each Accept may be characterized as risking that balance across a session—the structure Opinion 8297 treats as paying for chances, not inspecting disclosed sales. The same credit meter is evidence under the gray-machine definition.

7. Exceptions are narrow and already litigated

Social games fail if there is a house bank or house income (Oregon Racing; Hansen). Charitable games fail if outsiders profit (Johnston). Token amusement forbids money prizes. Sweepstakes disclosures under 646A.803 do not authorize a paid chance. Langan’s free-play device exclusion is now expressly “other than gray machines.”

NCG factual responses and residual risk

Responses: at acceptance the monetary result is fixed and known; declines cost nothing; no post-acceptance RNG; Opinion 8297 and Coats involved payment-before-outcome mechanics; the gray-machine theory is the separate issue counsel must defeat on device facts, not by relabeling the product. Residual risk: the gray-machine felony, video-lottery exclusivity, Lottery undercover mandate, a 2025 AG opinion that reads staking broadly, and Class C felony promotion remain material pending Oregon counsel review. The timing distinction is supportable; it is not settled, and it may not be sufficient.

ORS 167.164Adverse authority must be addressed, not dismissed
Complete transaction analysis

Chronology: when is the player financially committed?

“The player accepts or declines a fully disclosed, predetermined transaction. No later random event alters the monetary result. The legal question is whether Oregon treats that sequence as staking value upon an outcome under ORS 167.117(7)—and, separately, whether the cabinet is a gray machine under ORS 167.117(9) even if the timing argument is accepted.”

This is the position to test—not an Oregon legal conclusion. Compare to Opinion 8297 (pay, then an unknown sports or slot outcome) and to the gray-machine definition (credits, credit-removal, or casino simulation).

  1. 1 / POOLFinite pool predetermined
  2. 2 / REQUESTPlayer requests next offer
  3. 3 / REVEALExact result disclosed
  4. 4 / TERMSCost and result both known
  5. 5 / CHOICEAccept or decline
  6. 6 / SETTLENo post-accept RNG
  7. 7 / EXITRedeem remaining cents
Authorities

Primary Oregon sources.

Verified . Binding precedent and statutes distinguished from Attorney General opinions and consumer-protection rules. Older cases cite prior ORS 167.117 paragraph numbers; gray-machine provisions were added in 1991.

  1. [1]
    Oregon statute · definitions

    ORS 167.117 ↗

    Contest of chance (material degree); gambling (stake/risk upon chance or future contingent event); gambling device; gray machine; lottery; slot machine; social game; something of value; unlawful. Official 2023 ORS compilation as posted by the Legislative Assembly; numbering has shifted since Langan and Cannon.

  2. [2]
    Oregon Attorney General · formal opinion / not precedent

    AG Opinion No. 8297 (Nov. 13, 2025) ↗

    Private sports betting, fantasy sports, e-sports betting, and online poker/blackjack/slots are “gambling” under ORS 167.117(7). “Stakes or risks” includes paying for a chance to win. Official DOJ PDF. Not a judicial holding and not an analysis of mandatory pre-reveal.

  3. [3]
    Oregon statute · gray machines

    ORS 167.117(9) ↗

    Gray machine: electrical or electromechanical device that awards credits or contains a credit-removal circuit, or that plays, emulates, or simulates a casino game, bingo, or keno. Lottery-operated, licensed-bingo, and (separately defined) slot machines are carved out.

  4. [4]
    Oregon statute · gray-machine felony

    ORS 167.164 ↗

    Manufacture, sale, lease, transport, placement, possession, or servicing of a gray machine—Class C felony. State bears the burden on a motion for return. Forfeiture only after judgment under ORS 131.550–131.600 or chapter 131A.

  5. [5]
    Oregon statute · video lottery

    ORS 461.215, 461.217 ↗

    Lottery Commission may operate video lottery games. Terminals may be placed only with contracted retailers, generally on specified OLCC-licensed premises posted as closed to minors. Official chapter 461 text.

  6. [6]
    Oregon statute · unauthorized terminals

    ORS 167.166 ↗

    Any video lottery game terminal not authorized by the Oregon State Lottery Commission must be removed from the State of Oregon (effective December 1, 1991).

  7. [7]
    Oregon statute · Lottery enforcement

    ORS 461.725; 461.040 ↗

    Lottery Commission shall employ or contract for at least three undercover officers to enforce the gray-machine prohibition. ORS 461.040: the state-operated lottery is not subject to the gambling laws.

  8. [8]
    Oregon statute · promotion

    ORS 167.127 ↗

    Unlawful gambling in the first degree—knowingly promoting or profiting from unlawful gambling—Class C felony. See also ORS 167.117(17)–(18), (24).

  9. [9]
    Oregon Supreme Court · binding

    State v. Coats, 158 Or 122 ↗

    74 P2d 1102 (1938). Pinball scheme held a lottery; prize, chance, and consideration; chance predominated over skill. Cited as interpretive context in AG Opinion 8297. Predates the 1971 Criminal Code.

  10. [10]
    Oregon statute · sweepstakes solicitations

    ORS 646A.803 ↗

    Contest and sweepstakes solicitation disclosures and prohibited “you have won” representations. Unlawful trade practice—not a gambling-law authorization for cash-prize devices.

  11. [11]
    Oregon statute · seizure

    ORS 167.162 ↗

    Gambling device is a public nuisance; peace officers shall summarily seize. Forfeiture and destruction after a § 167.147 violation, subject to antique-device defenses.

  12. [12]
    Oregon statute · player offense

    ORS 167.122 ↗

    Unlawful gambling in the second degree—knowingly placing a bookmaker bet or participating as a player—Class A misdemeanor. Knowledge of the facts that make the gambling unlawful: Langan.

  13. [13]
    Oregon statute · devices

    ORS 167.147 ↗

    Knowing possession of a slot machine, or of any other gambling device believed to be used in promoting unlawful gambling—Class A misdemeanor. Antique defenses in subsection (3).

  14. [14]
    Oregon Supreme Court · binding

    State v. Langan, 293 Or 654 ↗

    652 P2d 800 (1982). Free-play electric machines were not gambling devices under the then-amusement sentence even when the tavern paid cash for free plays. The current amusement exclusion expressly excepts gray machines.

  15. [15]
    Oregon Court of Appeals · published

    Oregon Racing, Inc. v. Oregon State Lottery, 310 Or App 281 ↗

    485 P3d 912 (2021). Chip exchange was a house bank; door fees were house income; social-game exception failed. Official appellate disposition affirming the Lottery’s declaratory ruling.

  16. [16]
    Oregon Constitution

    Or. Const. art. XV, § 4 ↗

    Lotteries prohibited except as provided; State Lottery created; charitable bingo/lotto/raffles authorized; lottery games using computer terminals may not dispense coins or currency directly to players.

  17. [17]
    Oregon statute · charitable games

    ORS 167.118; ORS ch. 464 ↗

    DOJ-licensed charitable, fraternal, or religious bingo, lotto, raffle, and Monte Carlo events. Only the organization or an authorized employee may profit. See also State v. Johnston, 56 Or App 849, 643 P2d 666, rev den, 293 Or 174 (1982).

  18. [18]
    Oregon Attorney General · formal opinion / not precedent

    AG Opinion OP-2010-1 (Jan. 21, 2010) ↗

    Social-game requirements: “between players,” no house player, house bank, house odds, or house income. Official DOJ PDF. Not an approval of house-banked or credit-redeeming terminals.

Disclaimer: This brief is research and issue-spotting for professional discussion—not legal advice, Oregon State Lottery approval, Department of Justice charitable-gaming authorization, tribal-compact authorization, or permission to operate. No Oregon Attorney General opinion specifically addressing mandatory pre-reveal NCG architecture was identified. Opinion 8297 and OP-2010-1 are not binding precedent. Oregon counsel should verify all citations, effective dates, local enforcement practices, Lottery and OLCC exclusivity questions, and the actual deployed software before any compliance representation.