On this page
Build a correction record
Create one row for each reason returned. This is an operational method, not a provider-required form.
| Feedback | Evidence to inspect | Correction owner | Ready when |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consent cannot be verified | Declared method and reachable proof | Website or client owner | Reviewer can follow the real journey |
| Samples conflict with purpose | Actual message plan and submitted samples | Messaging owner | Description and examples agree |
| Website identity unclear | Submitted URL and business details | Client owner | Relationship is explained accurately |
| Unsupported use case | Full rejection and provider guidance | Account owner | Provider confirms an appropriate next path |
- Feedback
- Consent cannot be verified
- Evidence to inspect
- Declared method and reachable proof
- Correction owner
- Website or client owner
- Ready when
- Reviewer can follow the real journey
- Feedback
- Samples conflict with purpose
- Evidence to inspect
- Actual message plan and submitted samples
- Correction owner
- Messaging owner
- Ready when
- Description and examples agree
- Feedback
- Website identity unclear
- Evidence to inspect
- Submitted URL and business details
- Correction owner
- Client owner
- Ready when
- Relationship is explained accurately
- Feedback
- Unsupported use case
- Evidence to inspect
- Full rejection and provider guidance
- Correction owner
- Account owner
- Ready when
- Provider confirms an appropriate next path
Work in this order
- 1
Locate the failed stage. If the brand itself failed, use the brand failure guide.
- 2
Save all feedback. Include every code and detailed explanation, not only the first item.
- 3
Reconstruct the submission. Keep the campaign description, samples, URLs, and consent explanation that were actually submitted.
- 4
Compare with the live journey. Identify a specific inconsistency or missing piece of evidence for each reason.
- 5
Check correction and resubmission eligibility. Use the current provider instructions for that code before changing or recreating anything.
- 6
Record the final changes. Keep a dated summary so a later reviewer can distinguish old and new evidence.
Worked example: one correction is not enough
Suppose feedback flags both unverifiable opt-in and inconsistent samples. The agency fixes the form URL but keeps a discount message in a reminders-only campaign. The resubmission still contains an unresolved issue.
Close each feedback row independently. Review opt-in evidence and sample-message alignment as separate checks, then compare them together.
Platform distinctions
HighLevel exposes detailed required fixes and distinguishes eligible from ineligible resubmissions. Its documented “Maximum 3 tries exhausted” guidance concerns mismatched or invalid business details; do not interpret it as a universal three-attempt rule for every campaign.
Twilio supports correction of eligible failed campaigns. Its guidance favors editing when the existing information can be corrected; deleting and recreating can trigger a new vetting fee.
Questions
Should I change every field to improve my chances?
No. Keep accurate information. Change what the evidence supports and document the reason.
What if the rejection seems wrong?
Prepare the original feedback, relevant IDs, dated evidence, and one specific question for provider support. A support review is not a guaranteed reversal.
When is specialist help useful?
When the feedback conflicts with your evidence, several failed attempts have obscured the history, or ownership of the required changes is unclear.
Official references
Provider rules change. Always confirm against the current official documentation.
Get a clear next step for your A2P 10DLC issue
Whether you are troubleshooting one rejected campaign or trying to create a more reliable A2P process across multiple GoHighLevel sub-accounts, start with the evidence and the actual failure point.