That makes sense, and I should have made that boundary clearer.
If Google treats the professional affiliation itself as a conflict-of-interest signal, I would not build the case around “these should be restored because they are professional reviews.” The safer use of the evidence file is to understand exactly what was removed, stop relying on a review source that is likely to keep being filtered, and avoid making the pattern worse.
For an agency managing therapy or psychology profiles, I would separate the work into two tracks:
1. preserve the removed-review history so the client understands what happened and does not keep repeating the same request
2. build future reputation assets outside of GBP where professional referral context can be disclosed without asking Google to treat it as a normal customer review
So yes, if the relationship falls under the conflict-of-interest language, the practical advice is probably to document the removals, avoid trying to recreate that review pattern, and move the reputation strategy somewhere less likely to create a policy problem.