This walkthrough uses a published row from CompliCorp’s anonymized sample ACR. The reporting row is drawn from the sample; the evidence checklist below explains how to support that type of statement. It does not reproduce the underlying client issue record.
Start with the observed limitation
The sample rates WCAG 1.4.3, Contrast Minimum, as Partially Supports. Its remarks identify exceptions involving the Finish control in default and hover states, text in the results view of Sample Module A, and passage text in Sample Module E.
That specificity matters. A developer can locate the affected areas, while a procurement reviewer can understand that the rating refers to identified exceptions in the evaluated scope. A statement such as “contrast problems” would leave both readers with more work.
Identify the requirement and collect the evidence
W3C’s explanation of Contrast Minimum describes a minimum ratio of 4.5:1 for ordinary text and 3:1 for qualifying large text, with defined exceptions. The evaluator needs to determine which requirement applies to the actual text and state being assessed.
A useful supporting record would contain the following information:
On narrow screens, scroll the table horizontally to read all columns.
| Evidence field | What to record |
|---|---|
| Location | Product version, module, view, and affected control or text |
| Interaction state | Default, hover, focus, or another relevant state |
| Conditions | Browser, configuration, and steps needed to reproduce the observation |
| Measurement | Foreground and background colors, measured ratio, and applicable threshold |
| User impact | How the presentation may make content harder to read |
| Correction guidance | The properties or component that need adjustment |
| Verification | Retest conditions and observed result after a correction |
The public sample does not disclose the measured color pairs or ratios. Those values should come from the underlying evaluation; they should not be invented to make an example look complete.
Move from individual findings to the criterion rating
A single finding contributes evidence about a particular instance. The ACR rating describes the criterion across the evaluated scope. The evaluator must consider other relevant instances, supported functionality, and remaining barriers before selecting the rating.
The ACR preparation guidance on Section508.gov explains the conformance terms and the role of remarks. A Partially Supports rating indicates that some functionality does not meet the criterion. It is not a score calculated from a count of findings.
Several instances may arise from one shared style rule. Correcting that rule could affect many locations, but the effect still needs verification. Similarly, correcting the Finish control would not resolve the text exceptions in the results view or another module unless those were addressed and checked too.
Keep the report aligned with verified results
After a correction, retest the affected states and relevant shared instances. Record what changed and which limitations remain. Then determine whether the criterion rating and its remarks need revision.
Do not replace a limitation with a planned fix in the report’s description of current behavior. A remediation plan can explain future work, while the ACR continues to describe the evaluated product.
Read the two reports together
The audit gives technical teams the detail needed to reproduce and address barriers. The ACR gives buyers a structured account of conformance and limitations. Both should refer to the same evaluated product and make their boundaries clear.
Explore the sample reports, or review the EdTech audit and ACR case study for the engagement context. CompliCorp’s VPAT testing and ACR services connect evaluation findings to the reporting requested by your customer.