Treat a PDF text-extraction check as evidence about what a particular tool could recover from a particular file. Compare its findings with the visible pages and the source manuscript. An extraction mismatch may reveal a real content problem, but a clean text comparison does not prove that the book is visually correct.
Define the question the check is answering
A text-extraction check can help investigate whether expected words appear in an exported file. It may also reveal unexpected order, missing characters, or differences from the source manuscript. State the intended comparison before interpreting the report so its result is not mistaken for a complete publication review.
For example, the question might be whether the final paragraph of every chapter survived export. That is narrower than asking whether the entire book is ready. A focused question makes it easier to understand what a pass supports and what still requires direct inspection.
Identify the exact files and method
Record the source manuscript revision, exported PDF, and extraction method. Different tools or settings may recover text differently, particularly when the layout contains columns, positioned objects, or text embedded in images. Keep the raw extraction available alongside any summarized findings.
Confirm that the report refers to the file selected for publication. A successful comparison against yesterday's export does not establish that a later file contains the same content. If the final export changes, rerun the relevant check or explicitly verify the changed areas against the new file.
Investigate missing text in the visible page
When expected words are absent from the extracted result, open the corresponding PDF page. Determine whether the words are visibly missing, present as part of an image, represented differently, or located elsewhere because the content moved. Do not immediately repair the manuscript based only on the extraction output.
If the visible text is missing, trace the issue back to the source and export process. If it is present but the tool cannot recover it, record that limitation and consider its implications for the intended use of the file. These situations require different actions even though the comparison report may label both as missing text.
Review order and character differences carefully
Extracted reading order can differ from the visual arrangement of a complex page. A sidebar may appear in the middle of a paragraph, or a footer may interrupt a sentence in the extracted stream. Inspect the layout before deciding that the author's prose was rearranged during export.
Check suspicious characters against the visible page and the source. Ligatures, special symbols, or text encoding can affect extraction, while genuine substitution errors can also occur. Preserve examples in the review record so a production specialist can reproduce the finding instead of working from a vague claim that the PDF is broken.
Keep visual review as a separate requirement
A text match does not show that the type is readable, the margins are appropriate, or captions sit beside the correct figures. The expected words might all exist while some are clipped, overlapped, or positioned in a confusing order. Inspect representative pages and every reported problem in the actual output.
Likewise, a visually convincing page does not answer every question about its underlying text. Use the extraction result and visual inspection as complementary evidence. Avoid presenting either as a universal validator that establishes compliance with all current KDP requirements.
Close findings with specific evidence
For each discrepancy, record whether it was a content defect, an extraction limitation, or a difference that was expected and reviewed. Include the affected page or passage, the resolution, and the file version checked after correction. Do not dismiss an entire category of warnings because one example proved harmless.
Keep the final report with the export and source files. When a later revision changes text or layout, identify which comparisons need to be repeated. This gives the check a useful role in publication preparation without allowing a technical pass to replace editorial judgment or inspection of the reader's experience.
Frequently asked questions
Clear answers for this publishing decision.
Does a matching word count prove that no text is missing?
No. Equal totals can hide substitutions, duplication, and omissions that offset one another. Compare meaningful passages and investigate differences rather than relying only on the total count.
Should I ignore extraction errors when the page looks correct?
Record and investigate them according to the intended use of the file. A visible page and its recoverable text provide different evidence; neither observation automatically resolves the other.
Can this check approve my margins and image placement?
No. Those require inspection of layout and the applicable format requirements. A text-extraction report should state its limited scope instead of claiming to validate features it does not examine.
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