# Handle a content concern with the right object, report and review state

Original constructed teaching cases. No real accounts, participants, interviews or customers. Read the complete matching guide and do not substitute these examples for missing evidence.

M1 — Constructed disagreement: a post prefers a different chart style, with no identified policy concern. Decision: respond with a relevant source or use a feed preference if desired; do not file a fabricated misconduct report. Outcome: an editorial disagreement, not evidence of deception or an enforcement case.

M2 — Constructed suspicious profile: a Page admin finds a profile using the organization’s identity in an apparently misleading way. Decision: retain the exact profile reference and observed issue, inspect the appropriate profile-report reason and use a deliberate authorized report if warranted. Outcome: a case record; a receipt is not proof that LinkedIn removed the profile.

M3 — Constructed own-content notice: a fictional removal message is supplied in the exercise, while the author believes the quoted calculation was misunderstood. Draft request: “Please review the cited passage in its full context. I have read the relevant policy and reviewed the content. The passage describes a constructed example, not a real customer result.” Outcome: a proposed bounded request; submission, decision and restored availability remain separate.