I have had similar rejections because my extension was asking for “broad host permissions”, however, the “https://*.<extension https://*.<extension api domain>”

I have had similar rejections because my extension was asking for “broad host permissions”, however, the “https://*.<extension https://*.<extension api domain>” was the only url we needed permission for, simply because that’s required for extension. The “single purpose” extension part makes no sense to be honest. If the extension wants to provide a complete offline experience, you can’t do that. You need to split it into n different extensions and glue them together somehow. And I won’t even start about the documentation which is basically 5 years in past. Some pages describe apis available, give you examples and then you realise it’s all deprecated! Completely understand why uBlock maintainers aren’t keen to retry the submission. I’ve switched to firefox for all the development flow, and treat Chrome as Second-Class citizen in this case by using “web-ext-polyfill” (thanks Firefox!) to get chrome extension work.