{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreibk7ccceaeaccujtibmpnr7fngvadiatuppezbpwj3hgj5nthkv34",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:lk3jfj3zq4k4wxnk474axylu/app.bsky.feed.post/3mjqpbftdgps2"
  },
  "path": "/t/second-rejection-after-a-long-review-time-feedback-still-too-vague-to-act-on/1379228#post_1",
  "publishedAt": "2026-04-18T05:01:40.000Z",
  "site": "https://community.openai.com",
  "textContent": "I received the following rejection email for my ChatGPT app submission:\n\n\"After careful review, [app name] was not approved.\n\nOne or more of your test cases did not produce correct results. Please re-run all submitted test cases and align tool behavior/output with the documented expected outcomes. Ensure the same test cases pass consistently on both ChatGPT web and mobile.\n\nPlease review our app submission guidelines as well as this help center article which includes more information about common rejection reasons. Once you’ve remediated the issues above, you may re-submit your app for review from the OpenAI Platform dashboard.\n\nIf you have questions or believe we have made an error in our review, you may reply directly to this email to initiate an appeal.\"\n\nMy issue with this rejection is that the feedback is far too vague to be actionable.\n\nThe notice does not explain:\n\n  * which specific test case failed\n\n  * what the actual incorrect result was\n\n  * whether the problem occurred on web, mobile, or both\n\n  * whether the issue was caused by tool output, UI behavior, rendering/loading, or extra information in the output\n\n\n\n\nWithout that level of detail, it is extremely difficult to know what exactly needs to be fixed. A developer can re-run everything, but that becomes guesswork rather than a targeted remediation process.\n\nI understand that review teams may not be able to provide long individualized reports, but at minimum it would be very helpful if rejection emails identified:\n\n  * the failing test case\n\n  * the platform where it failed\n\n  * and the category of failure\n\n\n\n\nRight now, this kind of rejection feedback is not specific enough for developers to efficiently correct and resubmit their apps.\n\nHas anyone else dealt with this? If so, how did you figure out what the reviewer was actually flagging?",
  "title": "Second rejection after a long review time — feedback still too vague to act on"
}