{
  "id": "BRD-229",
  "slug": "brd-229",
  "title": "An unanswered 2FA is not an appealable failure",
  "statement": "An Authentication+ failure caused by an unanswered 2FA email must be resolved with a new vet rather than an appeal.",
  "rationale": "An appeal asks a reviewer to look again at a decision, and there was no decision here — the examination never completed because nobody answered the mail. The appeal is refused, the time is lost, and the vet still has to be re-ordered at the end of it. Appealing is the natural instinct because the outcome reads as a failure.",
  "layer": "BRAND",
  "layerSlug": "brand",
  "object": "the Authentication+ failure reason",
  "severity": "MEDIUM",
  "detectability": [
    "DETERMINISTIC"
  ],
  "failureClass": "RETRY_FIELD",
  "authorities": [
    "TCR"
  ],
  "applicability": {
    "entityTypes": [
      "PUBLIC_PROFIT"
    ]
  },
  "applicabilityText": "Applies when the brand is a public company.",
  "universal": false,
  "remediation": "Order a new Authentication+ vet, with the contact briefed and available this time. Save the appeal for a vet that ran and reached a conclusion you disagree with. Done when a fresh vet is in flight rather than an appeal.",
  "example": "A new Authentication+ order — not an appeal, where the failure reason is an unanswered or expired 2FA",
  "phase": "approval",
  "automated": true,
  "url": "https://ekas.io/rules/10dlc/brand/brd-229/",
  "markdown": "https://ekas.io/rules/10dlc/brand/brd-229.md",
  "registry": "https://ekas.io/rules/10dlc/",
  "updated": "2026-07-25",
  "licence": "CC BY 4.0 — https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"
}