Assessment
PDFThe grade and the score behind it, the recommendation, what your report says about itself, and every finding traced to the row that produced it. This is the document an agency reviewer would be working from. You get it first.
For software vendors
See your conformance report the way an agency will.
Public-sector buyers are assessing Accessibility Conformance Reports more closely, and a report that cannot substantiate its claims stalls an award. Have yours reviewed against the standard the solicitation names, and address the gaps before they become questions you answer under time pressure.
Uploading gives you the grade and the findings. Your document is stored only for your own account, is never shown to another customer, and you can delete it or export everything at any time.
✓ Reviewed before you submit✓ Findings you can act on✓ Re-checked on each revision
!Before you submit
Not after they ask
Not after they ask
C
Your report, as reviewed
VPAT 2.5 · vs WCAG 2.2 AA · Clarification requested
What the reviewer sees
Level A shortfalls12.1.1 Keyboard — the floor for basic use.
Disputed claims4Marked Supports over a remark describing a gap.
Never addressed17Criteria your report does not mention at all.
Unexplained passes23“Supports” with no remark behind it.
Example
WCAG 2.1/2.2
AA criteria checked
Section 508
Federal standard
EN 301 549
EU procurement
VPAT 2.5
Current ITI template
What a review turns up
Most of it is what the report does not say.
A conformance report rarely fails on an outright false claim. It fails on omissions — criteria left uncovered, remarks that explain nothing, an edition that does not match the solicitation.
!
Claims without evidence
Every “Supports” whose remarks do not substantiate it, and every “Not Applicable” with no justification — the two items procurement reviewers raise most often.
!
Criteria never addressed
Success criteria your report does not cover at all. A report written to WCAG 2.1 and submitted against a 2.2 requirement is the most common avoidable rejection.
~
Missing test methodology
Whether the report names who tested the product, how, and with which assistive technology. Its absence is what turns a conformance claim into an assertion.
~
Wrong or outdated edition
Whether the edition matches the standard named in the solicitation, and whether the report covers the product version actually being procured.
What this is, and what it isn’t
We review the document, not the software. A conformance report is the vendor’s own account of their product, and our assessment says whether that account is complete, internally consistent, and supported by what the vendor wrote — not whether the product is accessible.
A good grade means your report holds up to the review an agency would give it. It is not a certificate, and we will not describe it as one to a buyer.
Independence
We review reports for agencies and we review reports for the vendors who write them. Those cannot be the same engagement, so:
- We do not review a report for an agency if we advised the vendor on that report — or on any earlier version of it. Not disclosed and proceeded with: declined.
- A revision counts. If a vendor engaged us before submitting and then revised, the revision exists partly because of what we said, so reviewing it for a buyer would be grading our own advice. When we are large enough that a reviewer with no part in the earlier work can take it, that becomes the safeguard and we will say so here. Until then it is a decline.
- Any other prior engagement with a vendor under review is named on the face of the assessment, so it travels with the document into the procurement file rather than living in an email.
- We never author conformance reports. Reviewing a document we wrote would make the review worthless.
What you get back
The findings, before an evaluator writes them.
Criteria never addressed
In the assessmentThe success criteria your report does not cover, by number and name. On a report written to one edition and submitted against another, this section is usually the whole story.
Criterion table
CSVEvery row of your own conformance table with our finding beside it. Sortable, so the revision work can be triaged rather than read start to finish.
Version history
On screenEach revision held against the one before it, so you can see what a re-review would find changed — and show a buyer the same thing.
Two business days — or we tell you at intake if we can’t. A conformance report rewritten during an active evaluation takes considerably longer, so if your deadline is tight we would rather say no at the start than miss it at the end.
Why review it first
The same findings, on your schedule instead of theirs.
An agency raising these points mid-evaluation puts you on a clock you do not control. The same points, surfaced before submission, are simply a revision — or a prepared answer.
- ✓Address gaps in the report before it is filed.
- ✓Prepare responses for the items you cannot resolve yet.
- ✓See exactly which criteria a buyer will question, so the next revision addresses them.
- ✓Each revision is compared against the last, so you can show a buyer precisely what changed.
Sample findings
- !9 criteria marked “Supports” with empty remarks
- !Built to WCAG 2.1; solicitation names 2.2
- ~No tester, method, or assistive technology named
- ~Captions section marked “N/A” without justification
Drawn from patterns we see most often. Your report’s findings will differ.
Have your report reviewed before it is submitted.
The review comes back in two business days. Rewriting a conformance report during an active evaluation takes considerably longer.