BC-0282 · TROUBLESHOOTING
Editorial review 2026-09-27
Automatic Moderate Rating Lost After Studio Edit
Losing an automatic rating is a publishing-workflow consequence, not by itself proof of a moderation penalty or a newly assigned mature-content label. Identify the actual edits and current notice, then follow the content and maturity process for the current candidate without trying to select an outcome by changing answers inaccurately.
Symptom
The creator no longer sees the earlier automatic rating or simplified publishing expectation after edits.
Immediate action
Read the actual requirement and separate rating workflow, Build status and moderation action.
Diagnostic branches
- The interface requests a questionnaire without a violation notice.
- Treat it as a content-description requirement, not an assumed penalty.
- The experience's content changed.
- Review the new content honestly rather than reusing prior assumptions.
- A separate moderation notice exists.
- Follow its specific official process in addition to the content-rating work.
Least-destructive change
Preserve the edited version and complete accurate required information; do not invent a rating-restoration prompt.
Retest
- The record distinguishes an automatic-rating change from a moderation consequence.
- Questionnaire answers describe current content.
- Completion, publication and audience access are not conflated.
Escalation
Consult official maturity guidance for an unclear question or the notice's help route for an unexplained requirement. A guide cannot assign or guarantee a lower rating.
Working notes
Build status and automatic rating are different concepts. The shared source note explains the editing boundary; the current interface explains what is required next for the actual candidate. Do not turn a missing automatic label into a claim that every audience is permanently blocked.
Review what changed beyond the previous prompt-only workflow. Code is not the only content to inspect: added scenes, text, assets and interactions can matter to an honest content description. Preserve the actual change record rather than inferring consequences merely because an editor window was opened.
Complete the applicable questionnaire from the game's content as it now exists. An intended rating is not evidence for a response, and an earlier automatic label does not justify copying answers after substantive changes. If an item is unclear, consult the official explanation instead of guessing the answer most likely to lower the label.
Keep the resulting label, publishing result and audience access separate. A completed form is not proof of a successful publication or a specific review outcome. A genuine moderation notice should use its own official process rather than being hidden in this rating-workflow question.
Examples
- Workflow distinction: the current candidate asks for a maturity questionnaire after edits; no notice alleges a violation. Record the required process without inventing a moderation penalty.
- Content check: a new interaction changes what players encounter while most scenery remains unchanged. Assess that interaction rather than assuming the old label covers it.