01. Automated checks passed
Record the file identifier and version, tool and version used, date, checks run, results, and known limits. Automated checks can detect some structural and technical issues. They do not establish that alt text is meaningful or that a reading sequence makes sense.
02. Human review complete
Record who reviewed the work, when, which methods and assistive technologies were used, and what was covered. Check structure and intended use. Any remaining issue or limited test coverage should remain visible.
03. Published version verified
After your team posts the file, record its URL and confirm that the available version matches the reviewed version. Replaced, modified, or re-exported documents may need a new review.
Illustrative evidence entry
| Document | Board meeting agenda |
|---|---|
| Version | agenda-v2.pdf |
| Method | Tool checks + manual structure and task review |
| State | Human review complete |
| Publication | Awaiting district posting and version verification |
Conformance statements are specific
Any statement about WCAG conformance must identify the tested deliverable, date, method, and coverage. Evidence is not a legal opinion or a blanket certification for a district.
Inspect a sample record
Read the fictional sample delivery report and download its CSV evidence log. It shows open actions alongside the review state so your purchasing and publishing teams can evaluate the handoff.
Contact info@districtproof.io to discuss the evidence format for your project.
An evidence entry should answer practical questions
Can your team identify the exact document? Can it tell which source and returned file belong together? Is the review date attached to a method and a coverage statement? Does the record show open questions and the public posting location? Those details make evidence useful to a content owner, a technology team, and an administrator reviewing progress.
The evidence format should be agreed alongside the work. DistrictProof separates production activity, tool checks, human review, content approval, and publication verification. A single “done” label can hide the difference between those stages. We use records that make the next required action visible.
| Field | Why it belongs in the record |
|---|---|
| Document identifier and version | Connects the review to the exact returned file. |
| Original source and owner | Supports content decisions and future updates. |
| Date, method, and coverage | Explains what the result actually describes. |
| Findings and unresolved items | Keeps limitations and dependencies visible. |
| Approval and publishing action | Distinguishes district acceptance from technical review. |
| Public URL and verified version | Connects the reviewed output to what a reader receives. |
What automated checks can contribute
Tool results are useful when their scope is recorded. The report should identify the tool, version where applicable, checks run, and findings. A pass is a statement about those checks on that version. It should remain connected to the manual review rather than being repurposed as a broader promise about every aspect of the document.
Human judgment is needed where meaning and use matter: whether a description conveys the point of a chart, whether a sequence makes sense, or whether a form’s instructions are understandable. A review record should say which of these areas were examined and which assistive-technology tasks were included.
What happens when the district changes the file?
A change may affect the review. A replacement page can alter reading order, a new export can change structure, and a form edit can change field navigation. Keep the change and the new version visible. The recheck should reflect what changed and the dependencies around it, rather than automatically carrying forward the earlier outcome.
The same principle applies to a website component. A finding closed against one version can become relevant again after a redesign. A maintained log helps your team see which results still describe the current content and where another test is needed.
A service record, with clear limits
Dated evidence helps explain work performed within an agreed scope. It does not determine the district’s legal position, decide exceptions, or make a statement about material outside the review. Any conformance statement must be tied to the actual deliverable, criteria, date, and method.
For a purchasing discussion, ask to review the proposed evidence fields together with the statement of work. That lets your team decide whether the record will support its own acceptance process and reporting needs before production starts.