MATERIALS CHECKLIST

What Materials Are Required Before App Submission?

Many projects do not get blocked because the team cannot click submit. They get blocked because materials are incomplete, the materials do not match real app behavior, or reviewers cannot reproduce the intended path. This page organizes the required materials in the same order clients usually prepare them.

Send the app for a materials review View the full publishing process
Shortest version first

If you only want the minimum checklist, most teams need these categories first: build, app name and copy, icon and screenshots, privacy policy URL, contact email, and valid test credentials. If the app includes subscriptions, login, permissions, account deletion, geo restrictions, or special features, reviewer-ready explanations also need to be prepared.

Core materials
Build, app name, subtitle or short description, long description, icon, screenshots, category, and contact details.
Compliance materials
Privacy policy, data collection explanation, permission-use explanation, account deletion path, subscription explanation, and age-rating related information.
Reviewer validation materials
Test account, test password, OTP access method, shortest validation path, and Review Notes or reviewer comments.
What delays projects is usually not one missing screenshot. It is the mismatch between what the store page says and what the app actually does. Completeness is only the first layer. Consistency is the second.
The 7 categories clients usually need before submission
1. Build and version information

Confirm which build is being submitted, which environment it points to, whether login is required, and whether access depends on a specific region or whitelist. Many teams technically provide a build, but it turns out to be an outdated or testing build that no longer matches the listing.

2. Store page assets

This includes the app name, short description, long description, icon, screenshots, and promotional copy. The common issue is not missing text, but overpromising, screenshots that no longer match production, or store copy describing features that do not exist in the actual app.

3. Privacy policy and data explanation

For both Google Play and the App Store, the privacy policy URL needs to be reachable and aligned with actual behavior inside the app. If the app collects phone number, location, device identifiers, or payment-related information, those points need to be reflected consistently in both the store declarations and the privacy policy.

4. Test credentials and validation path

If the app requires login, subscription, membership, OTP, invitation codes, or enterprise whitelisting, do not stop at sending one account. Reviewers need the shortest path to the core feature, not a guessing exercise.

5. Permission explanation and trigger timing

If the app requests camera, photo library, microphone, location, or notification access, it helps to explain where the request is triggered, why it is needed, and what function is completed after approval. Permission purpose that does not match the real trigger page is a frequent review loop issue.

6. Subscription, payment, and account deletion path

Apps with subscriptions should prepare subscription logic, price explanation, and restore-purchase behavior. Apps with account systems should prepare the account deletion entry and flow description. These are often no longer optional details; they are direct review checkpoints.

7. Review notes and supporting explanations

If the app has special entry points, region switching, or a prerequisite action before the core feature becomes visible, write that directly into reviewer notes. In practice, the more specific the note, the easier it is for reviewers to complete validation.

Why does review still get blocked even after materials are prepared?
The materials exist, but they do not match each other

For example, the privacy policy says no data is collected while the app includes login and device identification, or the store screenshots still reflect an old version.

Reviewers cannot reproduce the core flow

Invalid accounts, missing OTP delivery, deep subscription entry points, or unmentioned geo restrictions can all block validation.

The materials are written from a developer view, not a reviewer view

The product team knows how to reach a feature, but reviewers do not. Reviewer notes should explain the path step by step: what to open first, where to tap next, and what should appear.

Special features were never pre-declared

Finance, social features, UGC, AI generation, location services, VPN, or external payment redirection all require clear compliance boundaries and validation context. Without that, review naturally slows down.

One of the most common industry mistakes is assuming that “the materials were uploaded, so approval should follow.” In reality, review cares more about whether the materials support a complete judgment than whether a file was uploaded at all.
A practical order for preparing the materials
Confirm platform and build first

Decide whether the submission is for Google Play, the App Store, or both, then confirm which build is actually ready for review.

Then complete the core assets and compliance details

Gather the name, descriptions, screenshots, privacy policy, and contact details early instead of assembling them on submission day.

Finish with a reviewer-style walkthrough

Use test credentials from start to finish and verify login, subscription, permissions, account deletion, core entry points, and critical screens through the shortest path.

FAQ
What materials are required at minimum before app submission?+
At minimum, teams usually need the build, app name and copy, icon and screenshots, privacy policy URL, contact email, and valid test credentials. If the app includes subscriptions, permissions, or account deletion, those flows also need clear reviewer-ready explanations.
Why does review still get blocked even after materials are provided?+
The usual problem is not total absence of materials but mismatch between materials and actual behavior. Typical examples include store copy not matching real features, privacy policy misaligned with data collection, invalid test accounts, or reviewer paths that cannot reproduce the core flow.
Can we submit without a test account?+
If the app requires login, subscriptions, or specific permissions to reach the core experience, it is risky to skip test credentials. Without valid access and a shortest verification path, reviewers often cannot complete validation and the review cycle becomes longer.