Check the report you have.

One check did not run: whether a conformance level contradicts its own remark. This report does not tell you that nothing contradicts itself, only what the other checks found.

1. Blockinga reviewer is likely to stop here

   The "Evaluation Methods Used" section is present but says nothing about how the product was evaluated.

   This section is where a reviewer decides how much the rest of the document is worth. Without it, a conformance claim has no stated basis and is usually treated as unsupported.

   What to change. Describe how the product was evaluated: what was tested, with which assistive technology and browser combinations, by whom, and over what period.

   Found in the example

   • on 2.2 Product Name: Acme Analytics Report Date: March 2024 Evaluation Methods Used: Applicable Standards: Acme Analytics is fully compliant with WCAG 2.0 Level AA and is 100% acce
   End of finding 1 of 6

2. Blockinga reviewer is likely to stop here

   The document contains an absolute claim of compliance, a 100% claim, which a self-evaluation cannot support.

   Absolute claims such as "fully compliant" or "100% accessible" cannot be supported by a self-evaluation, and a reviewer who spots one tends to discount the whole document. Referencing an accessibility overlay has the same effect.

   What to change. Replace absolute claims with what the evaluation actually found, criterion by criterion. A report is more persuasive when its limits are visible.

   Found in the example

   • aluation Methods Used: Applicable Standards: Acme Analytics is fully compliant with WCAG 2.0 Level AA and is 100% accessible. [Insert your company name here] Criteria Level Conform
   • Analytics is fully compliant with WCAG 2.0 Level AA and is 100% accessible. [Insert your company name here] Criteria Level Conformance Level Remarks and Explanations 1.1.1 Non-te
   End of finding 2 of 6

3. Blockinga reviewer is likely to stop here

   2 criteria are marked "Partially Supports" or "Does Not Support" with no explanation.

   This is the single most common reason a report is sent back. A criterion that is not fully supported must explain what the gap is; otherwise the reviewer cannot judge its impact and will ask.

   What to change. For every criterion marked "Partially Supports" or "Does Not Support", state what specifically does not work, who it affects, and any workaround or planned remedy.

   Found in the example

   • 2.1.1 Keyboard - Partially Supports - (no remark)
   • 2.4.7 Focus Visible - Does Not Support - (no remark)
   End of finding 3 of 6

4. Weakeninginvites a follow-up question

   The document names VPAT template version 2.2; the publisher's current revision is 2.5.

   Buyers increasingly expect the current template revision. An older one is not wrong, but it invites a follow-up question and a delay, which is the thing the report exists to avoid.

   What to change. Rebuild the report on the current template revision and carry the existing findings across, rather than editing the version number in place.

   Found in the example

   • Acme Analytics Accessibility Conformance Report VPAT Version 2.2 Product Name: Acme Analytics Report Date: March 2024 Evaluation Methods Used: Applicable Standards: Acm
   End of finding 4 of 6

5. Weakeninginvites a follow-up question

   The report is scoped to WCAG 2.0 only; it does not mention WCAG 2.1 or 2.2.

   A report scoped only to WCAG 2.0 leaves the 2.1 and 2.2 criteria unanswered, and those are the ones a current buyer is most likely to ask about.

   What to change. Extend the scope to the WCAG version the buyer expects and evaluate the additional criteria, rather than restating the 2.0 result.

   End of finding 5 of 6

6. Polishsmall, worth fixing before sending

   Guidance or placeholder text from the template is still in the document.

   Leftover guidance text from the template signals the document was not read end to end before it was sent, which colours how carefully the rest is read.

   What to change. Delete the template guidance and placeholder text.

   Found in the example

   • ly compliant with WCAG 2.0 Level AA and is 100% accessible. [Insert your company name here] Criteria Level Conformance Level Remarks and Explanations 1.1.1 Non-text Content A Supp
   End of finding 6 of 6

This read your document. It did not test your product, and a report with no findings here can still describe software that fails criteria in it. Nothing above is a compliance verdict or legal advice.