Hello App Review team,
Could you help investigate a possible false-positive similarity classification across my apps, or advise which channel can examine these review events together?
My concern is based on the recorded timing, the different purposes of these apps, and a previously approved bowling app whose update was rejected twice under 4.3(a), then subsequently approved.
Striker: Bowling Coach and Fotij
Striker is a bowling coaching app. Fotij is a color analysis and personal styling app. These were the two apps rejected together in the August events below.
App Store Connect records:
- August 21, 2026: Striker 1.0 was approved and became Ready for Distribution.
- August 28 at 00:23: Striker’s 1.01 update and Fotij 0.1.0 both entered In Review and were marked Rejected within that same displayed minute.
- August 28 at 18:22: Both apps again entered In Review and were marked Rejected within the same displayed minute.
- Both rejection messages for each app cited Guideline 4.3(a).
- Striker 1.01 was submitted again. On September 5, it entered review at 14:16 and became Ready for Distribution at 14:19. The completed submission shows 1.01, build 4, Approved.
The later approval was for the same marketing version, 1.01. Whether the binary or metadata differed across individual attempts should be checked against Apple’s submission records.
Camera1X: a separate, later occurrence of the same pattern
Camera1X is a native photography app combining depth capture, interactive 2.5D parallax and 3D Motion export, guided Moon/Stars/Moon + Landscape capture, and private on-device spatial reconstruction.
Its review history shows:
- August 6: In Review at 09:21, Rejected at 11:25 — approximately two hours.
- September 7: In Review at 17:25, Rejected at 22:47 — approximately five hours. This review returned a specific Guideline 2.1(b) purchase issue, which we addressed.
- September 9: In Review at 01:34, Rejected under 4.3(a) at 01:34. Fotij also entered In Review and was rejected under 4.3(a) at 01:34 that day.
The two replies already sent for Camera1X
In my first reply, I disputed the 4.3(a) finding and explained Camera1X’s functional capture and processing workflows. I raised the concern that similarity screening might be incorrectly grouping independent apps. I requested a manual review and identification of the specific binary components, assets, metadata, or app concept behind the finding, including a comparison app where possible.
In my second reply, I clarified that Camera1X had previously undergone two reviews lasting hours, while the latest rapid rejection coincided with separate apps receiving the same finding. I again requested an individual assessment of each app’s actual functionality and a concrete explanation of the alleged overlap.
I also explained that I would resubmit Camera1X first and wait for its review to conclude before resubmitting the other new apps. Camera1X 1.0.0 (6) is currently Waiting for Review.
All times above are displayed in App Store Connect in UTC+03:00. The history has minute precision, so matching timestamps alone do not prove that a decision was automated. However, the repeated timing across apps with different purposes, together with Striker’s subsequent approval, raises a concern that I would appreciate Apple investigating.
Could App Review staff:
- Compare these events and check whether an erroneous similarity association could explain the pattern?
- Identify the concrete overlap behind the 4.3(a) findings so I can address a specific concern?
- Advise how to provide the full review histories, submission IDs, and both Camera1X replies privately, and which support or appeal channel should track the investigation?
Thank you,
Aziz Saba