Contributor Account Review Request: Clarification on Case ADB-46450611-M9N6 vs. Prior Support Audit

Thank you for the reply. While I understand that community volunteers cannot directly resolve account issues, "trusting the process" becomes impossible when the process itself is fundamentally broken and directly contradicts Adobe's own written records.

This is not a standard ban or a generic complaint. This is a severe institutional contradiction involving a long-standing contributor portfolio (5,000+ original video assets, 100% self-created, zero AI, zero prior issues).

Here are the concrete facts of the case that support refuses to address:

1. The Official Written Clearance (Case 00506345 - May 6): Months ago, I proactively contacted Adobe Contributor Support regarding batch buyer downloads to ensure everything was fully compliant. On May 6, Adobe Support officially reviewed my profile and formally confirmed in writing:

   «We have checked your account, and there's no problem on your sales. We appreciate your contribution.»

2. The Contradictory Ban (Case ADB-46450611-M9N6 / ADB-47086196-J3C0): Months later, the system or support completely reverses its own official audit outcome, permanently bans my account under the false pretext of "artificial sales inflation," and confiscates $2,800 in earned royalties.

3. The Absurdity: Adobe is currently penalizing me for the exact same sales activity that their own team formally audited and cleared in writing on May 6. As an independent contributor, I have zero technical control over third-party buyer purchasing patterns on the marketplace. Furthermore, standard support channels have completely gone silent, closing tickets with canned templates without reconciling their own audit logs.

When a platform officially clears your sales in writing and then bans you later for those same sales while withholding thousands of dollars, telling a contributor to "trust the process" is an insult.

I am publishing these specific details here so that the community is aware of how internal contradictions are being handled, and so that an escalation manager with actual authority can finally cross-reference Case with the prior audit in Case.