I am looking for guidance from Apple or other developers who have experienced a similar Guideline 4.3(a) rejection. I submitted an independently developed iPhone/iPad application, Canvasz AI: Passport ID Photo, for App Review. On September 30, 2026, the app was rejected under Guideline 4.3(a) – Design – Spam, with a general statement that the app appeared to share a similar binary, metadata, and/or concept with apps submitted by other developers. The problem is that I have not been able to determine what Apple actually considers similar. Canvasz AI was developed independently and was not created from a purchased template, white-label application, cloned application, or repackaged source code. The application includes product-specific functionality such as: Real-time face-position and distance guidance before taking a photo On-device face detection and format-aware automatic framing Passport/document head-size framing logic On-device background segmentation, matting, and replacement without uploading the user's photo to a processing server One source photo converted into multiple destination classes, including passport/visa/ID photos, profile images, social-media formats, and banners Batch generation/export of supported formats from one source photo An enhancement pipeline intended to preserve facial detail rather than apply a generic beauty filter Seven localized languages iPhone and iPad layouts Portrait and landscape support No account or signup requirement Core photo processing that works locally/on-device Following the rejection, I replied through App Store Connect asking whether the concern related specifically to: Binary/source-code similarity Metadata Visual assets/UI The application concept itself I also performed an additional source-provenance and similarity audit. The audit documented progressive source-control history and compared Canvasz AI against my other independently developed applications. It found no byte-identical application-specific source/assets across the compared applications, the common files identified were normal Flutter/iOS/Android generated framework/scaffolding files. I attached the forensic technical clarification report to App Review and offered to provide source-control history, architecture information, screenshots, development evidence, or additional technical information if required. I first replied on September 30 and followed up again on October 5. I still did not receive clarification identifying the actual similarity concern. I subsequently resubmitted the application on October 12, 2026, with detailed App Review notes and the forensic report attached. As of October 25, 2026, both the app and its in-app purchase remain Waiting for Review. I understand that App Review may require additional time, especially after a previous Guideline 4.3 rejection. I am not asking for special treatment or asking Apple to disclose another developer's confidential application or internal detection systems. What I need is enough actionable information to understand how to comply. Apple's published Guideline 4.3 states that apps in established categories may be accepted when they provide a meaningfully different or improved experience. I therefore have three specific questions: If an independently developed application receives a 4.3(a) rejection referring to "binary, metadata, and/or concept," how can the developer determine which of those dimensions actually caused the rejection? If source provenance and independent development evidence are provided, but no clarification is received, what additional evidence is normally useful for demonstrating that an application is not a template, clone, or repackaged application? For the "meaningfully different or improved experience" standard, should differentiation be evaluated on the complete user workflow and experience, or is overlap in individual features sufficient to trigger Guideline 4.3? I have invested significant development, testing, localization, and product-design effort into building a genuine application intended to provide useful functionality to users. I fully respect Apple's need to prevent spam, cloned apps, white-label applications, and low-effort template submissions. I support that objective. However, without knowing whether the concern is source code, metadata, UI/assets, or the concept itself, it is extremely difficult for an independent developer to make a meaningful correction instead of making speculative changes. I would appreciate guidance from Apple or developers who have encountered this situation and successfully obtained actionable clarification. Thank you.