01. Inventory
Find publicly linked documents and understand the scope. Record what the crawl covers and where it may be incomplete.
02. Triage
Prioritize current service documents, active forms, board materials, and other content your district identifies.
03. Agree on the work
Define inputs, versions, page allowances, review methods, price, and schedule in writing.
04. Remediate
Fix the available source or document structure. Use the agreed format and version naming.
05. Review
Run the agreed automated checks and human review. Record coverage and unresolved items.
06. Approve and publish
Your team approves the returned work and posts the reviewed version.
07. Verify and maintain
Confirm the published file version and record the URL. Add recurring Care where appropriate.
People and delivery
DistrictProof is a brand of Salt Technologies, Inc., with delivery based in Pune, India. The specific reviewers, tools, and review coverage for your project should be identified in the agreed scope. Your scope identifies the agreed review responsibilities and evidence.
Keep the evidence distinct
Explore the three evidence states: automated checks passed, human review complete, and published version verified. Each state describes a specific version and method.
Set up the handoffs before work starts
District projects work better when each handoff has an owner. Communications may manage the website queue, the board office may assemble packets, technology may control access, and purchasing may approve the contract. We identify the authorized contact, content decision-maker, and publication owner early so a file does not stall between departments.
The intake list connects those people to the actual work: original filename, current version, public location if one exists, available source, document type, and required date. It also records dependencies such as an unanswered content question or an attachment still being prepared. That list becomes the basis for delivery tracking.
Make the sample describe the real backlog
A representative sample should contain the easy and difficult material. Include text-first notices, multi-column layouts, tables, charts, scans, forms, and an assembled packet where relevant. Tell us which formats are common and which are unusual. A sample made only of simple documents can obscure the work needed elsewhere.
After sampling, the fixed scope identifies what is included, the expected mix, the review method, output formats, milestones, and how new material is handled. Your team can review those assumptions before committing to a project. Changes remain explicit rather than being absorbed into an unclear definition of completion.
Resolve content questions without guessing
Some barriers reveal a content issue: a chart lacks enough explanation, a scan is unreadable, a table has ambiguous headings, or an old form has conflicting instructions. We flag the question and the affected file. The district provides or approves the authoritative information, and the production queue records that dependency.
Accessibility work should preserve intended meaning. Technical review and district content approval serve different purposes. The handoff should distinguish a document that is ready for content approval from one that still needs a source decision or additional review.
Treat revisions as versions of a maintained document
A corrected delivery file, a district content amendment, and a new export are different events. Each should be identifiable. Agree on naming and change notes so staff can tell which version was reviewed and which version belongs online. Avoid overwriting a record in a way that makes its review history impossible to follow.
A project can define one acceptance window, an agreed correction process, and rules for later changes. Care adds a recurring routine when publishing continues. The purpose is to give your team a reliable next step after the first delivery, not just a folder of files with no owner.
A useful board update
A concise update can state the scope funded, the material reviewed, the current delivery stage, the remaining dependencies, and the next milestone. Those facts are more meaningful when connected to dated evidence. A completed review count should not include files still waiting for human review or documents that were never posted in their accepted version.
Use the quality and evidence model to keep those states distinct. The district decides how to report its obligations and legal position; the service record supplies specific information about the work performed.