Also, we are not sure how far we can take interpretations of the publications. There are several posts asking for clarification for the statement "App extensions don’t include privacy information files" in https://developer.apple.com/documentation/bundleresources/privacy_manifest_files/describing_data_use_in_privacy_manifests. Since they are included in the warnings, my group now assumes they are required for app extensions.

@codefairy , are you saying that unused static code will be stripped from the result by the linker because some feature is not used? Interesting, but also sounds easy to accidentally undo in the future. Apple does not use the words "statically linked" in the following article, but they do say you must provide the privacy manifest if you "repackage" an SDK which is required to provide the manifest: https://developer.apple.com/support/third-party-SDK-requirements/

Thanks @Sisky_RO , we have noticed the logic behind that reading of what has been published. But no one wants their apps to be rejected after May 1 and we could feel more confident that we had everything prepared if we could get official clarifications on the new rules. Also, it would be easier to prioritize the needed work. We did cover the warnings generated by our app and its repackaged SDKs. Our subsequent app submission generated no warnings. Its the actual embedded frameworks in question

You might want to check to be sure the build product or the archive for the app contains the PrivacyInfo.xcprivacy file. If it is not appearing in the app, then it might not have membership in the target. Try creating the Privacy Report from your archive as well. If it show an error, then something in the original might need work. Is the warning email complaining about your app, your app's extensions, or some other SDK?

The confusion is from the LACK of warnings about the embedded frameworks in the app's "Frameworks" folder. The warnings for the app itself were expected. Thanks @liamnichols_

Answers: 1: No. We changed nothing related to privacy manifests on this submission. 2: I am not sure that I understand the question. Some of the SDKs may have newer APIs, but most of them are the same as our previous submission, if that is what you were asking. If you meant to ask if our SDKs using required reason APIs had manifests? The answer is No for at least one of them. 3. The frameworks in the "list of commonly used third-party SDKs" do not have manifests in this submission.