An unanswered 2FA is not an appealable failure
The requirementstatement
An Authentication+ failure caused by an unanswered 2FA email must be resolved with a new vet rather than an appeal.
- Severityseverity
- MediumMEDIUMUsually survives review, but lowers your trust score or invites a manual look you would rather avoid.
- When it bitesphase
- Gates approvalapprovalGet this wrong and the brand or campaign is refused at registration.
- What is checkedobject
- the Authentication+ failure reason
- Where it liveslayer
- BrandBRAND
- How Ekas settles itdetectability
- DeterministicDETERMINISTIC
- Settled in code from the values you submitted. No model involved, no judgement call, same answer every time.
- What the fix involvesfailureClass
- Fix the fieldRETRY_FIELD
- A better value in the form fixes it. Ekas can rewrite it and re-check.
- Who requires itauthorities
- TCR
- When it appliesapplicabilityText
- Applies when the brand is a public company.
Why this rule existsrationale
How to fix itremediation
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.
A compliant exampleexample
A new Authentication+ order — not an appeal, where the failure reason is an unanswered or expired 2FA
Rules you will hit next
Other brand rules at the same severity. A registration is judged as a whole, not rule by rule.
BRD-229 is one of 196 brand rules in the 915-rule 10DLC registry. Free to cite under CC BY 4.0.