If a valid sitemap is assumed to guarantee indexing, start by preserving one representative example. It gives the investigation a concrete reference and makes the eventual correction easier to judge.
Find the likely cause
Submission is mistaken for a promise of inclusion.
Treat this as an explanation to verify against the actual work. Look at the input, the relevant decision, and the final result together. If the evidence does not support this diagnosis, investigate the mismatch before applying a convenient but unrelated fix.
Make the targeted correction
Investigate page quality, accessibility, and indexing state separately.
A sitemap is most useful when it accurately lists the site's intended discoverable canonical pages.
Check that the repair worked
Use page-level evidence before concluding that submission solved discovery problems.
Repeat the check on the final version that the reader or customer will encounter. An approved draft, a preview, and a published result can differ; the acceptance decision should concern the version people actually use.
Prevent the next related failure
A separate issue to watch for is this: the sitemap lists pages that no longer exist. Rebuild from current published records and remove invalid entries.
Monitor the useful outcome
Track invalid entries, missing intended pages, and consistency between sitemap URLs and site behavior.
Keep a short record of the original symptom, the evidence behind the diagnosis, and the result of the acceptance check. That record makes the solution reusable when the same condition appears again, without assuming that every superficially similar problem has the same cause.
Official reference for the platform or standard discussed: Google Search Central: sitemaps.