Watch face rejected - Split_bundle 1

My watch face got rejected, the reason:

What does it mean? Thx

Hi Dect

Generally if you have a complication set to App Chooser it gets this. Also if you show a picture of or document a complication that isn’t available on all watches it will give this error.

If you were using open custom app be sure it is one that is preinstalled on all Watches for example Samsung Health may not be installed on non-Samsung Watches. That would also give a Split_Bundle error.

I’m told if you upload your app again with a higher version number and get a different reviewer it often passes but it is better to fix it.

Samsung Developer Relations

1 Like

The only different complication that I am using (one that I never used) is the long text, all the other I am familiar with and never had problem.

I’ll set all default provider to empty and try again, hope it works :sweat_smile:

Thanks :smiley:

I set all complications to empty, now it is being reject for this:


I checked it on my watch, all complications are correct. I can click on them on the watchface and they word normal.

What “Ok button” is this? and what it “Rohan”?


What do you show in your images? the watch tested has to match what is shown in the images attached. I don’t like to use blank images. I’d just use Watch Battery for default Long Text

The examples are for Android and I think they rarely describe the actual problem even for an Android app.

Samsung Developer Relations

1 Like

Images in the watchface: background design basically;
Images in the playstore: screenshots of the companion app (same screenshot for all the others i uploaded, “same app”) / screenshots of the watch face with variations of color, complications and designs (designs and colors included in the watchface);

The external files added to the watchface are 4 background image option and two fonts (.ttf)

I tried a couple of things and submitted again. If it gets rejected I’ll try all complications with watch battery as u said. If still get rejected Ill rebuild it from zero, another file and try again. If nothing of this work, I’ll give up and go to next…

yeah, those examples don’t help at all, actually they just make it even more confusing hahaha

I looking at other description/images for watch faces they show the options in later images but have pretty standard preset complications in the first few images. But I think it may be the luck of the draw when you get a reviewer.

Best of luck,

Samsung Developer Relations

1 Like

Worked. I dont know what solved the problem.

Things I did in case anyone is having the same problem:
1 - Set all complications to empty;
2 - Deleted all images then added them again;
3 - Did a quick resume in playstore description, something like: “This is digital watch face with x complications and blah blah blah”
4 - Generated a new .aab and submited

Again, I dont know what solved the problem, just listing my steps :sweat_smile:

I had the same problem. I solved the problem by removing all description about the complication in the screenshots and in the app description.

So, I did not change the watch face, all the customisable complications are still there. I just removed all the descriptions / explanations about the complications on the screenshots and on the app description.

After I removed all those information, the watch face was approved.

1 Like

What I can say is that lately it seems that some people on the Validation Team have changed.

I’m also getting rejections on watch faces that have been online for months and work without issues specified by them. … BTW, what does “Rohan” mean?

After 3/4/5/6 attempts, they are accepted, without changing practically anything. :man_shrugging:

1 Like

Still no idea what it means, but what rev said works. Just add a simple description and the problem is solved…

1 Like

It appears to me that the examples for rejections are the same ones as used for Android Mobile Apps and pretty much nonsense. I think they use Rohan because it means nothing. Everyone gets the same error example

Samsung Developer Relations