Crypto exchange App Review evidence pack: the documents Apple needs before resubmission
A crypto exchange App Review evidence pack is the complete file that turns a rejection into a controlled resubmission. It usually contains a legal opinion letter, country availability statement, entity documents, reviewer-readable App Review Notes, demo account instructions, and — when needed — a 4.3 differentiation memo and 5.1.2 privacy data-flow audit. The point is not to upload more PDFs. The point is to answer each Apple guideline with the exact document the reviewer can verify.
Why a "pack" beats a single document
Most failed resubmissions send one strong document into a weak file. A legal opinion may be useful, but if it does not match the storefront list, App Review Notes or entity account, the reviewer still has open questions. A privacy label may be updated, but if the KYC SDK still contradicts it, 5.1.2 remains open. A 4.3 reply may show differentiation, but it does not answer whether the exchange may operate in each region.
The pack works because it assigns one job to each document and then makes those documents agree.
The evidence matrix
| Apple concern | What the reviewer needs to verify | Evidence pack item |
|---|---|---|
| 3.1.5 licensing / permissions | The exchange has a defensible legal basis in every enabled App Store region. | Legal opinion letter + country availability statement |
| 3.1.5 operator test | The app is offered by the exchange itself, not an unrelated third party. | Entity registry extract, developer account explanation, operator memo |
| 4.3 duplicate / template app | The app is a distinct exchange product, not another white-label clone. | Differentiation memo, feature matrix, metadata rewrite, demo route |
| 5.1.2 privacy / data use | Privacy label, SDK behavior, KYC data, tracking and sharing match the real app. | Privacy label worksheet, SDK inventory, data-flow map, ATT note |
| Reviewer readability | The reviewer can find every answer without interpreting a legal memo. | App Review Notes, attachment index, demo account instructions |
Minimum pack contents
Template excerpt: attachment index
File 01 — Legal_Opinion.pdf. Region-by-region analysis responding to Guideline 3.1.5 licensing and permissions.
File 02 — Country_Availability_Statement.pdf. Enabled storefronts, excluded storefronts and legal basis mapping for this app version.
File 03 — Entity_Documents.pdf. Operator registry extract and developer account relationship explanation.
File 04 — App_Review_Notes.txt. Reviewer-facing summary and demo account instructions.
Conditional files. Differentiation_Memo.pdf for Guideline 4.3; Privacy_Label_Worksheet.pdf and SDK_Inventory.pdf for Guideline 5.1.2.
What makes the pack fail
- Documents disagree. The opinion says selected regions, the storefront list says global availability, and the Review Notes say something else.
- Review Notes are written last-minute. Notes are the map. If the map is unclear, even correct documents can be missed.
- One guideline is ignored. A 3.1.5 fix can still fail 4.3 or 5.1.2 in the same review round.
- Demo account blocks the reviewer. Expired credentials, missing KYC, geo-blocked access or empty wallet states can kill an otherwise strong file.
- Attachments are unnamed or generic. "Document.pdf" and "Legal memo final v3.pdf" force the reviewer to guess. File names should state the job.
Already have documents but still getting rejected? Send the rejection email and your attachment list. We will identify whether the gap is legal scope, storefront scope, Review Notes, 4.3 differentiation or privacy evidence.
Audit the evidence pack →30-day controlled resubmission path
Frequently asked questions
Is a legal opinion letter enough for a crypto exchange App Store rejection?
Usually no. A legal opinion is one core document, but Apple also needs to see the storefront scope, entity relationship, Review Notes and sometimes 4.3 or 5.1.2 evidence. The pack matters because every document answers a different reviewer question.
What should be attached in App Store Connect after a 3.1.5 rejection?
At minimum: a legal opinion letter, country availability statement, entity documents, rewritten App Review Notes and working demo account instructions. If the rejection also cites 4.3 or 5.1.2, add differentiation and privacy evidence before resubmitting.
Can the evidence pack include multiple legal opinions?
Yes. Some submissions use one umbrella opinion; others use coordinated local-counsel analysis for region groups. What matters for App Review is that the opinion scope matches the enabled storefronts and is summarized clearly in Review Notes.
Should I appeal before building the evidence pack?
Only if Apple clearly misread evidence that was already submitted. If documents were missing, unmapped or inconsistent, an appeal usually delays the fix. Build the evidence pack and resubmit with a clean reviewer map.