# BRD-229 — An unanswered 2FA is not an appealable failure

> An Authentication+ failure caused by an unanswered 2FA email must be resolved with a new vet rather than an appeal.

- **Rule ID:** BRD-229
- **Layer:** Brand (`BRAND`)
- **Checks:** `the Authentication+ failure reason`
- **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:** TCR
- **Applies:** Applies when the brand is a public company.
- **Canonical URL:** https://ekas.io/rules/10dlc/brand/brd-229/

## Why this rule exists

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.

## How to fix it

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 of a compliant value

```text
A new Authentication+ order — not an appeal, where the failure reason is an unanswered or expired 2FA
```