Resolve Skipped Checks in a Book Validation Report

Treat a skipped or unsupported validation check as an unanswered question until you determine whether it matters to the book. Identify why the check did not run, what evidence is missing, and how to obtain that evidence. A report with no detected errors can still provide incomplete coverage when important checks were never performed.

Read the status definitions before the summary

Start by understanding the statuses used by the specific validation tool. Passed, not applicable, skipped, unsupported, and unavailable can describe different situations. A summary that counts only failures may hide the difference between a rule that was evaluated successfully and a rule that the tool could not evaluate. Preserve the detailed results rather than relying on a green icon or a short completion message.

Read the tool’s explanation of its scope and inputs. A checker might inspect the interior file without reading the cover, or evaluate selected dimensions without reviewing the meaning of the text. Do not infer additional coverage from the tool’s name. Write down which questions the report actually addresses and which parts of the publication package remain outside that scope.

Determine why each relevant check was skipped

Investigate the reason before deciding what to do next. A check might lack a required input, depend on a format option that was not selected, or be unavailable in the tool’s current workflow. These causes need different responses. Supplying the correct production setting may enable a meaningful check, while repeating the same run without changing the missing input may produce the same unanswered result.

Confirm that the reported reason matches the project. If a cover-related check was skipped because no cover was supplied, that may be understandable during an early interior review. It is still a gap in a final package review that intends to cover both files. Record the stage and the intended scope so an acceptable early limitation is not carried forward as if it were final approval.

Distinguish irrelevant checks from missing evidence

A check can be genuinely irrelevant to a particular book or format, but that conclusion needs a reason. Identify the feature or condition that would make the rule apply and compare it with the actual files and setup. Do not mark a check irrelevant merely because resolving it would take time or because the manuscript appears visually ordinary at first glance.

For example, a checker may not evaluate a feature because it did not detect that feature in the supplied file. Confirm whether the absence is intended or reflects an incomplete export. A missing element can make a check inapplicable while revealing a different production problem. Review the book’s expected contents and configuration before treating the skipped status as evidence that no further work is needed.

Assign another review method where necessary

For each important unanswered question, choose a method capable of answering it. That might involve inspecting the file properties, reviewing the exported pages, checking the current KDP guidance, or asking a qualified contributor to examine a specific issue. Name the question and the evidence required. A general instruction to review manually can leave the same uncertainty hidden under a different label.

Keep automated and manual results distinct in the record. If a person verifies a condition that the tool could not assess, record who reviewed it, which file version they inspected, and what they concluded. Do not edit the original report to make it appear that the automated check passed. Preserving the actual result makes the combined evidence easier to understand and reproduce later.

Reassess readiness using the complete review record

After resolving the gaps, review the findings together. A passed technical check does not cancel an unresolved content issue, and a strong editorial review does not establish that the file meets every applicable production requirement. Use the current KDP preparation and submission guidance for the intended format. The release decision needs evidence appropriate to each requirement rather than one universal approval label.

Save the detailed report, supplementary review notes, and the exact files they cover. If the files or relevant settings change, decide which results need to be repeated. Keep remaining uncertainties visible and explain their significance to the person preparing the submission. The value of a validation report is the evidence it provides within its actual scope, including a clear account of what it could not establish.