Recover an A+ Content Draft After a Rejection

Recover a rejected A+ Content draft by preserving the submitted version, identifying the specific issue in the feedback, and checking the affected material against current KDP guidance. Correct the cause across text and images, then review the complete revised package. Repeated submission without a supported correction provides little useful evidence and can make it harder to track which version was actually reviewed.

Preserve the rejected package and the exact feedback

Save the submitted copy, exported images, relevant associations, and the platform's message together. Record the submission date and the package identifier used in your project. Do not immediately overwrite the only copy with an attempted fix. The original is the evidence needed to understand the feedback and compare the next version with what the platform actually received.

Read the feedback carefully and distinguish a specific correction from a broad reference to a policy area. If a particular phrase or image is named, locate it in the actual submitted asset. If the message is less specific, list the parts of the package that plausibly relate to the cited rule. Keep those as hypotheses until checked; do not describe your interpretation as though it were additional information supplied by the platform.

Match the issue to the current guidance

Open the relevant current KDP A+ Content Guidelines and compare the submitted material with the applicable section. Check text embedded in graphics as well as editable fields. A promotional phrase removed from a text box may still appear in an image, leaving the underlying issue unresolved. Use a location list to ensure the review covers every occurrence in the package.

Focus on the actual rule and the meaning of the content. Replacing a few words with synonyms may preserve the same disallowed claim or instruction. Conversely, changing unrelated panels can create new problems without addressing the feedback. Write a concise diagnosis connecting the affected material, the rule consulted, and the proposed correction. This gives the next reviewer a clear basis for evaluating whether the issue has been resolved.

Choose a correction that preserves accurate information

Decide whether the affected content should be removed, narrowed, or replaced with a factual explanation of the book. For example, a panel built around an unsupported promotional assertion may work better when it describes the actual teaching sequence. Verify replacement wording against the manuscript. A rejection recovery should not introduce new promises merely because the original message needs to be rewritten.

Keep accepted material stable where the correction does not affect it, but review related dependencies. If an image changes, its description and nearby text may need revision too. If a panel is removed, check whether the remaining sequence still makes sense. The objective is a coherent corrected package, not a visibly different draft whose relationship to the original problem has become difficult to explain.

Inspect the new exports and assembled presentation

After making the source changes, open the actual replacement files and verify that they contain the approved correction. Distinguish them clearly from older exports. Review the assembled package at the intended viewing sizes and confirm that the content remains readable. A last-minute rewrite can create crowded text or an awkward visual hierarchy even when the policy issue has been addressed.

Check the full package for the same class of issue, while keeping the review bounded by the current guidance and manuscript evidence. Record what was examined and any unresolved uncertainty. If the feedback cannot be interpreted confidently, use the available support path with the preserved submission details and a precise question. Do not conceal uncertainty by inventing a reason for rejection or claiming a fix is certain to be accepted.

Resubmit a traceable version and verify its state

When the corrected package is ready and the submission is authorized, use the appropriate current workflow and preserve the version submitted. Record the resulting state without equating submission with approval or public display. Those are different events. If additional feedback arrives, compare it with the new package rather than treating the earlier diagnosis as permanently settled.

Keep the correction history concise enough to be useful for future updates. The record should show the original issue, the relevant source, the change made, and the evidence of the resulting state. This turns the rejection into a repeatable quality improvement for the project. It also protects the author from reintroducing an old phrase or asset during a later redesign when the reason for removing it might otherwise be forgotten.