Review an A+ Content Package Before Submission

Review an A+ Content package in the form readers will encounter, with the actual graphics and copy placed together. Confirm that every feature claim matches the book, inspect readability at smaller sizes, and compare the package with current KDP guidance. A successful image export establishes only that a file exists; it does not establish that the content is accurate or ready to submit.

Freeze the book evidence used by the design

Identify the manuscript and edition that the A+ package describes. Collect the approved cover, contents outline, and any features the copy will mention. If the design was drafted before the manuscript was finished, compare its claims with the completed book. A planned exercise or illustration may have been removed during editing while its promotional panel remained unchanged in the designer's folder.

Create a short claim-to-content list. For each panel, note the chapter, example, or feature supporting its message. A panel explaining the book's three-stage planning method should correspond to the method the reader actually receives. If the manuscript uses a different sequence, resolve that disagreement before polishing the visual treatment. The design review becomes much clearer when reviewers can consult specific book evidence instead of relying on memory of the initial brief.

Inspect the final assets rather than only their sources

Open every image selected for the package and compare it with the approved design source. Check spelling, punctuation, cropping, and the actual text inside the graphic. Confirm that the correct export was selected when multiple versions exist. A corrected source file cannot prevent an older image from being submitted accidentally if filenames and review records do not distinguish the versions clearly.

Record the intended module or placement for each asset and verify its current requirements. Keep the original source available so a correction can be made without rebuilding the entire design. If an asset has been resized or compressed after approval, inspect that resulting file again. The visual evidence should describe the file that will be used, not a larger or cleaner version that exists only in the design application.

Read the sequence at a smaller viewing size

Review the package in its intended order and at a size representative of a narrow screen. Read the actual sentences rather than simply checking whether the panels look balanced. If a panel contains a dense list, ask which details are necessary for a reader deciding whether the book fits their needs. Splitting or simplifying the explanation may be more effective than shrinking every line until the composition fits.

Check that the sequence makes sense without assuming the reader studies every panel equally. Each heading should introduce its own point, while the full sequence should avoid repeating the same promise in several forms. Give particular attention to a transition between a broad overview and a detailed example. The example should demonstrate the stated approach rather than introduce a new, unsupported claim about what the book includes.

Review content rules and image descriptions

Compare the final copy and graphics with the current KDP A+ Content Guidelines, including restrictions on promotional language and other disallowed material. The review should include words embedded in images, not just editable text fields. Keep a dated note of the source consulted and the specific corrections made. Do not assume that a phrase is acceptable merely because it appears in an unrelated advertisement or an old saved example.

Write useful image descriptions for the actual visuals and check their accuracy after design changes. A description should help someone understand the image's relevant content rather than serve as a place to collect search phrases. If the graphic changes from a chapter overview to a process diagram, its old description may no longer fit. Review the visual and description together so neither becomes an unexamined leftover from an earlier draft.

Preserve the submitted package and resolve feedback precisely

Save the accepted copy, asset versions, and intended book association as one review record. Identify any remaining issue before submission and assign a specific correction. A note such as improve panel two is difficult to close; a note that the second panel promises an absent worksheet can be resolved against the manuscript. Keep the final package separate from rejected alternatives so the reviewed material is easy to select.

If the platform returns feedback, inspect the stated issue and the affected content before revising. Make a targeted correction, then check the full package for related instances and unintended effects. Preserve the feedback and revised version so a later reviewer can understand what changed. Local approval, submission, and the resulting public display are distinct checkpoints. Verify each with its own evidence instead of treating completion of one step as proof of all the others.