# BRD-212 — Vetting is not a remedy for a rejection

> External vetting exists to raise throughput, not to reverse a rejection, and it is not guaranteed to raise anything.

- **Rule ID:** BRD-212
- **Layer:** Brand (`BRAND`)
- **Checks:** `the reason a vet is being ordered`
- **Severity:** MEDIUM — Usually survives review, but lowers your trust score or invites manual review.
- **When it bites:** Gates approval — get this wrong and registration is refused
- **How it is detected:** Deterministic (settled in code from the submitted values)
- **Fix type:** Fix the field — a better value in the form clears it
- **Required by:** Bandwidth, AWS
- **Applies:** Applies to every 10DLC registration.
- **Canonical URL:** https://ekas.io/rules/10dlc/brand/brd-212/

## Why this rule exists

The instinct after a refusal is to buy the most expensive verification available, and it is precisely the wrong move: the vet examines the same data that was just refused, so it returns the same answer and charges for it. What fixes a rejection is correcting the brand data or filing an appeal — and a vet ordered on uncorrected data is money spent to confirm the problem.

## How to fix it

Correct the brand data the rejection pointed at, or file an identity appeal with documentation. Order the vet afterwards, and only if the throughput you need is above what a verified brand gets by default. Done when the identity status is resolved before any vet is bought.

## Example of a compliant value

```text
Fix the legal name to match the CP-575, then re-verify — rather than ordering a standard vet against the same unchanged name
```

## Notes

Absorbs OPS-305, which states the same two facts: vetting is not a rejection remedy, and a top standard score already buys the best available terms.