DiscoverBrowse CategoriesHow it worksMethodologyFor developers
Arrow Pro 3D
Lumen Studio · Games

Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-06 from 850 user reviews, the store listing and its privacy label. We have not scanned the app's package, so nothing on this page was read from inside the app itself.

Analyzed automaticallyConfidence: Low3 signal sources850 reviews scannedNot human-reviewedas of 2026-10-06
 Which version this describes

This analysis describes version 1.18.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-06 . The app may have changed since.

The store currently lists version 1.18.0, updated 2026-10-01.

What the analysis found

Each finding shows what agreed and how strongly. Automated analysis

The catch list 1

Charges we publish at a strength we stand behind: measured from an artefact, agreed by independent sources, or reported by enough users to clear that charge's own published bar.

Reported by users: Aggressive ad load
Reported by 32 usersReported by users, not measured — nothing we can inspect could show this either wayview evidence
Advertising volume or placement that interrupts normal use: ads between every action, unskippable or forced full-screen ads.
What we saw: Raised by 32 distinct reviewers — 3.8% of the 850 reviews scanned on this store leg (App Store).

One source only — shown, not confirmed 1

A single kind of evidence. We publish these because withholding them would be the bigger distortion, and we do not treat any of them as a finding we stand behind.

Reported by users: Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
One source onlyShown, not confirmed — the only source is user reviews.view evidence
Reviewers repeatedly report that the app is not what its advertising showed. We never see the ad creative itself, so nothing we collect can corroborate or refute this — it is published as an attributed user report: what reviewers say, and how many of them said it.
What we saw: Misleading advertising: raised by 11 distinct reviewers (1.3% of 850 reviews scanned)

What reviewers said

Verbatim excerpts from public store reviews, shown as corroborating user reports. They are not Appworthy audit evidence, and a quotation is not proof of the finding it sits under.

Aggressive ad load

the ads is too much and too long, it keeps playing the same ads every time I finished the level, and it lasts for over 2 minutes, even though I clicked on NOT INTERSTED on the ads, but it repeatedly loops, that's too much, I give up…

1★ · Google Play · 2026-08-23

very relaxing. ads don't keep popping up after each level like the other one rated almost as highly as this one (how?). That one was so annoying I had to uninstall it; found this one and what a difference! I can just play and relax and…

5★ · Google Play · 2026-09-11

The usual fun game of removing arrows in a certain order without colliding with one another. But an ad after EVERY level is downright evil. The ads sometime take more time than the level itself. And with no paid option of removing the…

1★ · Google Play · 2026-08-23

Reports that the ads misrepresent the app

Nothing like the ads. Just cubes. And after awhile deja vu. Same puzzles over and over. Doesn't get harder. If you like the same kind of puzzles over and over, this is the game for you. If you don't care about it being like the ads, this…

3★ · Google Play · 2026-08-17

Falsely advertised as no ads but there are ads after every game.

3★ · Google Play · 2026-09-04

FALSE ADVERTISEMENT AND DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES THESE PEOPLE ARE LIARS

1★ · Google Play · 2026-09-05

How the automated analysis works

Automated, corroborated, and never human-reviewed without a person.

This assessment is produced automatically. Three independent signals are read — user reviews, the store listing and the store privacy disclosure — and each candidate finding is filed under the sources that support it.

No charge stands on one kind of evidence — with one published exception. A finding is either a measured fact that anyone can reproduce (an ad SDK is in the package; every subscription bills weekly; the privacy label omits a tracker we can see), or it is an interpretation — and an interpretation needs independent sources to agree before it reaches the catch list. The exception is a harm only users can see: a charge may publish from reviews alone, as “Reported by N users”, once enough reviewers raise it to clear that charge’s own published bar. That agreement rule is what replaced the human reviewer, not a model’s confidence.

There is no overall score, on purpose. A 0–99 number was published here until 2026-09-15. It was withdrawn because it discriminated too weakly to be the instrument — 44.7% of every pair of apps tied — and because a single number is a verdict where a count is an observation. What publishes instead is a row of measurements, each of which says what was counted and, where we could not look, says that instead.

Findings under One source only are real reports we do not stand behind as findings. They are shown because withholding them entirely would hide a genuine complaint, and labelled because publishing them as charges would be an accusation off a single source.

 Not yet human-reviewed

Several measurements above say “Not assessed” because no artefact we hold can answer them. A human review is what resolves those — and it can remove a favourable band as easily as add one.

Hands-on inspections are not yet open.

 How this page was produced
Analyzed 2026-10-06 Version analyzed: 1.18.03 independent signals850 reviews scannedConfidence: LowNot human-reviewedVocabulary v1.13Methodology v1.3
Signals run: user reviews, the store listing and the store privacy disclosure. Not yet checked: SDKs in the app package, the app's own on-screen text and the app manifest.