BC-0280 · TROUBLESHOOTING
Editorial review 2026-09-27
Publishing After Editing a Build Game in Studio
Publishing after a Studio edit requires separating the edited version's workflow from its earlier Build state. Review the documented handoff and automatic-rating consequence, complete the applicable content and maturity process truthfully, and inspect the candidate you actually intend to publish. Earlier Build publication is not evidence that the edited version has met every requirement.
Symptom
A Studio-edited candidate no longer follows the creator's earlier simplified Build publishing expectations.
Immediate action
Identify the actual edited version and distinguish workflow handoff from content-rating and audience requirements.
Diagnostic branches
- The account only viewed the project without an established edit.
- Confirm what actually changed before asserting a handoff or rating consequence.
- Content or behavior changed beyond prompting.
- Review the actual maturity and publishing requirements for that edited candidate.
- An older test or questionnaire is being reused.
- Reassess affected content and checks rather than transferring earlier approval assumptions.
Least-destructive change
Preserve the edited candidate and its history; do not attempt a guessed rollback or rating-restoration prompt.
Retest
- The record names actual edits rather than merely opening a tool.
- Content disclosures match the current experience.
- Save, test, publish and audience outcomes remain distinct.
Escalation
Use official Studio and publishing guidance for the actual notice. The handoff guide explains the boundary; it does not grant a rating, reversal or audience exception.
Working notes
Record what happened to the project: merely viewing it, actually editing in Studio, or continuing changes through Build chat. Do not collapse these into the vague statement that Studio was opened. The source-backed handoff and rating rules concern actual changes and their scope; inspect the edited candidate rather than guessing from a window title.
Inventory what changed in the content, not only code. A new scene, interaction, dialogue or externally introduced asset may affect the answers required by the maturity process. The questionnaire should describe the actual experience honestly; choosing a desired audience is not a substitute for accurate disclosure.
Keep version and workflow evidence together. Identify the edited candidate, the requirements currently displayed and which tests have actually been performed in the relevant context. An old Build playtest does not validate added behavior, and a saved file alone does not establish a successful public release.
If the current interface requires another step, follow the legitimate Studio or publishing guidance rather than trying to restore the old automatic rating through a prompt. This guide does not promise reversal, a lower rating or a particular audience outcome.
Examples
- Candidate record: earlier Build game / actual Studio edit / content affected / current questionnaire or publishing notice / checks completed for this version / unresolved requirement.
- Disclosure distinction: a new interaction changes what players can encounter even if most scenery remains the same. Review the experience's actual content rather than copying older answers automatically.