What triggers Red Potassium ("non-functional Popup") when the cited term isn't in our description?
15 views
Skip to first unread message
Walid Dib
3:56 AM (1 hour ago) 3:56 AM
to Chromium Extensions
Hi all,
Looking for guidance on a Chrome Web Store rejection pattern we've now hit twice for what appears to be the same false flag.
Quick context: 10Demo is a SaaS product. The extension lets signed-in users record a webpage flow (clicks, DOM snapshots, screenshots) so an AI agent can later narrate that recording as a demo. Item ID: jnifcipkbehcepcnceeicpnedjphfade.
The rejection (Red Potassium, "Inaccurate Description - Non functional"):
> The following functionality stated in the item's description are not working or were not reproducible in our review: "Popup"
Our store listing description does not mention "popup" anywhere. After the same rejection on v1.0.3 we grepped both the listing copy and the extension source for any reference to popup (or pop-up) and cleaned what we found. v1.0.3 was eventually approved after a manual review push. v1.1.0 just came back with the identical rejection, less than 30 minutes after we asked for a second look.
What we already provide reviewers in the appeal notes:
- Step-by-step reproduction: sign in, click the extension icon, the 420×600 overlay opens with "Start Recording"
- A state-aware architecture note: signed-in users see the overlay with full functionality; signed-out users see an informational sign-in panel
Where we're stuck:
1. Is Red Potassium keyed off something other than the literal description text? Manifest fields like action.default_popup, something derived from the unpacked package, an automated scrape of the listing? If "Popup" in the rejection refers to the extension's action popup rather than a word in our description, that would explain the mismatch and we'd happily adjust.
2. Has anyone else seen Red Potassium repeat-fire on the same false term across submissions? If so, what cleared it permanently rather than per-version?
Happy to share the description text, manifest, and screenshots if it helps anyone diagnose. Any pointers, similar experiences, or guidance from folks closer to the review process would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Walid
10Demo
Looking for guidance on a Chrome Web Store rejection pattern we've now hit twice for what appears to be the same false flag.
Quick context: 10Demo is a SaaS product. The extension lets signed-in users record a webpage flow (clicks, DOM snapshots, screenshots) so an AI agent can later narrate that recording as a demo. Item ID: jnifcipkbehcepcnceeicpnedjphfade.
The rejection (Red Potassium, "Inaccurate Description - Non functional"):
> The following functionality stated in the item's description are not working or were not reproducible in our review: "Popup"
Our store listing description does not mention "popup" anywhere. After the same rejection on v1.0.3 we grepped both the listing copy and the extension source for any reference to popup (or pop-up) and cleaned what we found. v1.0.3 was eventually approved after a manual review push. v1.1.0 just came back with the identical rejection, less than 30 minutes after we asked for a second look.
What we already provide reviewers in the appeal notes:
- Step-by-step reproduction: sign in, click the extension icon, the 420×600 overlay opens with "Start Recording"
- A state-aware architecture note: signed-in users see the overlay with full functionality; signed-out users see an informational sign-in panel
Where we're stuck:
1. Is Red Potassium keyed off something other than the literal description text? Manifest fields like action.default_popup, something derived from the unpacked package, an automated scrape of the listing? If "Popup" in the rejection refers to the extension's action popup rather than a word in our description, that would explain the mismatch and we'd happily adjust.
2. Has anyone else seen Red Potassium repeat-fire on the same false term across submissions? If so, what cleared it permanently rather than per-version?
Happy to share the description text, manifest, and screenshots if it helps anyone diagnose. Any pointers, similar experiences, or guidance from folks closer to the review process would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Walid
10Demo
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages