[Bug - Partner Center] Unable to push update to extension with no explanation of failed review #447
Description
Recent review outcome for my latest update, which was flagged under
Technical Requirement Policy 1.1.2
(Distinct Function & Value; Accurate Representation) with a status of "Attention Needed"
The review failed but
- no apparent reason for certification failure
- general points in the review are wrong and do not apply to my extension
Extension has already been successfully reviewed and published before from version 1.0.0 with several updates up to the version 1.0.5 in the Microsoft Edge Add-ons store without issue, adhering fully to your developer policies at each stage.
For last two weeks I got rejected every version from 1.0.6 to version 1.0.16 - all submissions have been rejected with the same "reason" given in the report.
Please take the following action
We reviewed your submission and identified some changes that are needed before we can publish or update the extension. Please make these changes and resubmit your extension. For more information, contact your Microsoft representative. For faster responses, please include your Product ID.
Report details
Technical requirement policies Notes to publisher
1.1.2 Distinct Function & Value; Accurate Representation
No specific reasons vere given.
I uploaded last valid, certified version (1.0.5) with just version change to 1.0.6 - and it was rejected.
How can extension be rejected if it was approved and successfully published in Microsoft Add-on store two weeks ago?
The Microsoft Edge Add-ons developer policies regarding distinct function and accurate representation have not changed in a way that would affect this scenario as far as I can see, and I have ensured compliance throughout.
Regarding the noted concern that the product
"does not accurately represent the product and may mislead users" or uses a "name or icon that is too similar to that of other products,"
I believe this may stem from a misunderstanding, and I would like to clarify the following points:
Unique Features and Lack of Similarity:
My extension offers distinctly original functionality centered on Grok, X and Grokipedia integration, including specialized search and productivity tools not replicated elsewhere.
Searching for “Grokipedia” in the store shows only my extension, confirming its uniqueness. There is no other extension with the same or similar name, nor any other product that focuses on Grokipedia-related functionality in this way. The icon is also original and not similar to any other product that I could find when cross-checking existing listings.
Icon, promo banners, graphics, name and description of my extension is unique - no other extension is even similar to mine.
There are absolutely no comparable extensions with similar features, names, or icons - I have double-checked this exhaustively.
Accurate and Transparent Representation
The store listing of my extension accurately represents the product’s source, scope, and functionality and is intentionally very detailed, precisely to avoid misleading users in any way. It clearly explains what the extension does, how it interacts with Grok and Grokipedia, and what users can expect before installation, in line with the Microsoft Edge Add-ons requirement that metadata must accurately and clearly reflect the extension’s features.
Also the description hasn't changed for last two weeks:
I am confident that this submission meets all policy standards, as it builds directly on a previously approved version with no alterations to branding or descriptive elements that could raise concerns.
Given the above, I kindly ask for:
Clarification of what specific element (name, icon, description, or feature) was considered as “not accurately represented” or “too similar” to other products in the store as there are no similarities in any way from my point of view.
Concrete guidance on what changes are required to comply with policy 1.1.2 in this particular case, so that I can adjust the submission if needed.
If possible, I would also appreciate a re-evaluation of the current submission in light of the fact that:
-
The extension has been previously approved with the same branding, listing and exactly same files inside .zip package
-
There is no other extension with the same name or a confusingly similar icon, nor any other extension that focuses on Grokipedia features.