Before submission, compare saved publishing settings with the options and requirements applicable to the actual edition in the current KDP workflow. Identify the source and date behind each changing assumption, then resolve discrepancies before selecting final files. An older template can preserve useful project decisions, but it should not be treated as permanent evidence that every option remains available or appropriate.
Separate project choices from platform assumptions
Read the saved specification and distinguish decisions the author made from facts about what the platform permits. The intended reader, manuscript structure, and preferred physical experience are project choices. Available production combinations and current submission requirements depend on the publishing environment. Keeping these categories separate helps the author understand what must be verified and what should remain stable unless there is a reason to reconsider it.
For a print guide, the specification may name a preferred size, an interior treatment, and a page-count estimate. Record which entries describe the accepted final files and which were preliminary assumptions. A saved planning sheet can contain both without making the distinction obvious. Before using it during submission, reconcile it with the completed book so outdated estimates do not become accidental inputs to the current setup.
Identify the source and age of important requirements
For each platform-dependent entry, locate the official guidance or prior verification record supporting it. Record the date and the relevant format or marketplace context. A statement copied from another project may have been accurate for that project while remaining unverified for this one. Treat missing context as a question to resolve rather than assuming that a familiar-looking value is universally valid.
Prioritize requirements that affect the actual package, including format-specific files, metadata, and included content records. Use current official sources and the publishing workflow where appropriate. Do not reconstruct current rules from an old screenshot alone. Preserve the old record as history, while documenting the evidence that supports the present decision and any difference that needs attention.
Compare the actual current options with the plan
Review the setup for the intended edition and compare available choices with the saved specification. If an expected option is absent or a requirement differs, capture the discrepancy accurately. Confirm that the comparison concerns the correct format and context before changing the plan. A mismatch may come from selecting the wrong setup rather than from a platform change.
Avoid choosing a nearby alternative merely to keep moving through the interface. Determine what the difference would mean for the manuscript, cover, and reader experience. If the intended package must change, make that a documented production decision with the necessary review. A field selected during submission should reflect an accepted specification, not silently redefine the book after its files were approved for another configuration.
Resolve discrepancies through the dependent files
Identify which artifacts depend on the corrected setting. A production change can require new interior or cover work, while a metadata requirement may affect a different part of the package. Keep those dependencies explicit and reopen the relevant checks. Do not treat a saved local validation result as approval for files whose underlying assumptions have changed.
If the current guidance is unclear for the specific case, preserve the exact question and relevant project details for clarification through the available support path. Avoid inventing a requirement or claiming certainty simply to close the checklist. The goal is a supported decision for the actual book. An unresolved condition should remain visible until there is enough evidence to choose and verify the next step.
Save a dated submission baseline
After resolving the comparison, update the accepted specification with the verified settings, source references, and review date. Link it to the actual interior, cover, and metadata selected for submission. Keep superseded planning records distinguishable so they cannot be mistaken for the current baseline during another handoff or retry.
Before completing the submission, confirm that the selected fields and files still agree with that baseline. If further changes occur, assess their impact rather than carrying the earlier check forward automatically. The record should show which decisions were confirmed for this edition at this time. It supports a careful publication process without claiming that a dated local check can guarantee future availability of options or replace the platform's own review.
Frequently asked questions
Clear answers for this publishing decision.
Can a saved template prove current KDP availability?
No. Use it as a record of prior choices, then verify platform-dependent assumptions for the actual edition and current workflow before relying on them.
Should I select the closest available option when the planned one is missing?
First diagnose the discrepancy and assess its effect on the files and reader experience. Any necessary alternative should become an explicit reviewed production decision.
What should the updated baseline contain?
Record the accepted settings, relevant official sources and dates, and the exact files and metadata they describe so future reviewers can understand the scope of verification.
What must I check, disclose, and verify myself when AI helped produce the book?
Review facts, rights, and source material yourself, record which parts were AI-assisted or AI-generated so you can answer Amazon’s disclosure question accurately, and treat every automated check as a starting point rather than a verdict.
See what the compliance checks cover