Near the bottom, Describing data use in privacy manifests, says: App extensions don’t include privacy information files. The operating system and App Store Connect use the privacy information file in the extension’s host app bundle, in combination with those from third-party SDKs your app links to. Yet the warnings email we see lists the app's extensions as missing manifests. Are we reading the documentation incorrectly? Getting this clarified helps us justify approvals for the additional work.

1C8F.1 seems to cover all the situations that CA92.1 covers, plus 1C8F.1 covers data for app extensions and App Clips. If our SDK uses UserDefaults, and our group debates that some functionality is about data only accessible to the app and would be covered by code CA92.1 some functionality is about data accessible to extensions and App Clips and would be covered by code 1C8F.1 Can we declare both codes in our manifest file (PrivacyInfo.xcprivacy) ? Or should we only declare 1C8F.1 to cover both parts?

We submitted an app to TestFlight and received the expected warning email. However, the email did not mention any of the SDK frameworks that were in the app. The email only mentioned the app itself and the app's extensions. We expected to get warnings for our frameworks that used required reason APIs. We also expected to get warnings for frameworks in the "list of commonly used third-party SDKs" Why are the warnings not as expected? Is this because Test Flight is not making the same kind of warning emails that will be created for the App Store?

I noticed that Apple's articles have changed since originally being published. For example, some required reason codes have been added to Describing use of required reason API Since there is no visible modification date or revision date on the page, how can we get notiifications for changes to these pages? I did not find a 'watch' button in them.

We noticed a change in the page Adding a privacy manifest to your app or third-party SDK that adds a deadline of November 12 past which invalid manifests will not be allowed in store submissions. Does this mean we can no longer use old versions of third-party SDKs which lack a manifest? (The ones that were allowed because we had already shipped with them.)

We received a rejection today based on an invalid PrivacyInfo.xcprivacy file. It contained one extra space character was somehow added to a value field. Is there a tool that can check the validity of our PrivacyInfo.xcprivacy files?