Ok, I must say that I genuinely appreciate that, despite the obvious disagreement between us, we've managed to keep this conversation respectful or meaningful. That means a lot to me, and I sincerely thank you for that.
To be completely honest, after our discussion I wanted to understand your concerns better, so I asked a colleague to walk me through the timeline of your complaint. I wasn't the one handling your case, and I felt uncomfortable commenting on something I hadn't looked into myself. Kudos to your persistence.
What I can say is that I saw the complete gameplay log that formed the basis of the investigation. From what I saw, the timeline, the balances, the wins, the withdrawals and the subsequent gameplay were all mathematically consistent with the conclusion that was reached.
I also understand that the evidence doesn't match what you're seeing on your end, and I genuinely understand why that leaves you with more questions than answers.
Unfortunately, I can't share or discuss further the evidence from the complaint investigation, and I don't think it would be appropriate to do so. If I could, I honestly think our discussion could have moved in a much more concrete direction, perhaps, but those are simply not my boundaries to cross.
So, while I hear everything you're saying and I respect your perspective, I don't think there's anything more I can add without speculating, and I don't want to do that.
Well, I'll be away from work until Wednesday, so I won't be around on the forum for a few days. I didn't want to disappear without replying, but I also think we've both explained our perspectives as clearly as we can. I appreciate such open discussion.