The test report submitted for this ASIN is missing pages. To move forward with the approval process, please submit a complete test report from ISO 17025 accredited

You submitted a complete test report. Every page is there. The rejection says:

We are contacting you because the test report [file name].pdf submitted for ASIN [B********] is missing pages. To move forward with the approval process, please submit a complete test report from ISO 17025 accredited.

You check the file. Nothing is missing. You resubmit. It is rejected again. One seller ran this loop through hundreds of submissions across six months.

What “missing pages” usually means

It usually is not about pages at all.

Amazon has told sellers directly, in as many words, that the PDFs submitted were in a format they are unable to accept, and asked for them to be resubmitted in colour — not black and white, not a photocopy, not a scanned copy.

The check cannot read the document cleanly, and the failure surfaces as “missing pages”. The error message describes the symptom the parser experienced, not the problem you need to fix. Which is why the message is so much worse than useless: it sends you looking at contents when the issue is the file.

Fix the file first

1. Use the lab’s original PDF wherever you can get it, rather than a scan of a printout.
2. If you must scan, scan in colour — with the colour option on, even for a document that is entirely black and white. This is the single most reported fix.
3. Scan at high resolution. Sellers report 600 dpi or higher for images, 800 dpi or higher for PDFs.
4. Do not photocopy. A copy of a copy degrades exactly the features the check relies on.
5. Do not compress the PDF before uploading.

Sellers who have gone round this loop for weeks report it clearing on the first resubmission once the file itself changed, with no change to the report’s contents at all.

About the file name you do not recognise

These notices sometimes reference an internal upload identifier rather than the file name you used. It reads as though Amazon is describing a document you never sent, and sellers reasonably conclude the case has been mixed up with someone else’s.

It has not. That is your submission under Amazon’s own reference.

Being an approved lab does not exempt the document

A recurring and fair complaint: sellers use one of Amazon’s own approved TIC providers — NSF, Eurofins, UL — and the resulting report is still rejected. The provider approval covers the testing. It does not exempt the document from the automated file checks that everything else goes through.

Tell the lab specifically what was rejected and ask them to reissue. They deal with this regularly, and an experienced person there will know how to produce a file that passes. One seller’s rejections turned out to trace back to an inexperienced member of staff assembling the documents; a colleague reformatted them and they went through unchanged in substance.

Before assuming it is formatting

Rule out the genuine content failures, because they produce similar messages:

• Was the full battery of required tests completed, rather than a subset?
• Did the product pass every test point?
• Does the report cover the product, not a component of it? A child-resistant closure test covers the cap. A request about the bottle is not satisfied by it, and the mismatch between the report’s images and your product is what gets flagged.
• Is the lab genuinely ISO 17025 accredited for the tests performed?

The wider pattern

Amazon’s document checks are automated and literal. They fail on things a person reviewing the same file would not notice — resolution, colour depth, a scan artefact — and they report those failures in language that describes contents. When a document rejection makes no sense against the document you are looking at, suspect the file before you suspect the facts.

Keep reading: Amazon’s third-party verification playbook · How to reinstate a listing after a cGMP deactivation · The full suppression taxonomy