We are looking for guidance on how to proceed with a repeated App Review rejection under Guideline 5.6 for our iOS app.
The review message says the app shows unusual behavior commonly associated with fraudulent activity and that features appeared to be intentionally hidden during review. However, no specific screen, feature, account state, flow, or reproduction steps have been provided despite follow-up requests.
The app includes legitimate account-state-dependent flows. Some screens become available only after normal user eligibility is met, such as after a purchase, a savings plan activation, sufficient balance, or a holding period. Examples include transaction history, sell/withdrawal, rewards, and physical delivery.
To support App Review, we have already provided two review accounts: one pre-purchase account and one post-purchase account. We have also updated App Store screenshots to cover the major functionality screens and uploaded complete screen-recording videos in App Review Messages for both account states.
Both accounts use the same production app, backend, APIs, eligibility rules, and feature configuration as regular users. There are no reviewer-specific permissions, reviewer-only configurations, or hidden feature flags.
We do not want to keep resubmitting blindly without understanding what Apple observed. What is the recommended way to obtain a specific issue description or reproduction path for a Guideline 5.6 rejection when the response remains generic? Is requesting an App Review appointment or call appropriate in this situation?