ACR errors usually fall into a few predictable categories: incorrect conformance language, missing or vague remarks, the wrong VPAT edition selected, scope that does not match the product, and signs that the report was filled in without an underlying accessibility audit. You can spot most of these by reading the first two pages carefully, checking the conformance terms used in the table, and looking for specificity in the remarks column. A credible ACR reads like it was written by someone who actually evaluated the product.
| Error Type | How to Spot It |
|---|---|
| Wrong conformance terms | Terms like “Yes” or “No” instead of Supports, Partially Supports, Does Not Support, or Not Applicable. |
| Vague remarks | Generic phrases repeated across criteria with no product-specific detail. |
| Wrong VPAT edition | Section 508 edition used when the buyer needs WCAG or EN 301 549. |
| Scope mismatch | Product name in the title does not match the features actually evaluated. |
| No audit behind the ACR | Evaluation Methods Used section is empty, generic, or absent. |
| All Supports, no issues | Every criterion marked Supports with no remarks. Almost always inaccurate. |
Incorrect Conformance Terms
The ACR uses four conformance terms and only four: Supports, Partially Supports, Does Not Support, and Not Applicable. “Not Evaluated” can appear, but it signals incomplete work.
If you see “Yes,” “No,” “Compliant,” “Pass,” or “Fail” in the conformance column, the author did not follow the VPAT structure. That alone is enough to question the rest of the document.
Vague or Recycled Remarks
The remarks column is where the real value lives. It should describe what the product does, where it falls short, and what users experience.
Watch for the same sentence repeated across dozens of criteria. Phrases like “the product meets this requirement” with no product-specific context point to a copy-and-paste ACR. Good remarks reference actual components, screens, or workflows.
The Wrong VPAT Edition
VPAT comes in four editions: WCAG, Section 508, EN 301 549, and INT. Most commercial SaaS buyers in the United States expect the WCAG edition. Federal procurement teams usually want Section 508. European buyers want EN 301 549 or INT.
An ACR built on the wrong edition will fail procurement review. Check the cover page. The edition is stated up front.
How Do You Spot a Scope Mismatch?
Read the Product Description and Scope section first. Then compare it to what was actually evaluated.
Common scope errors: the ACR covers the marketing site instead of the application, lists features the product does not have, or claims to cover mobile when only the desktop web was evaluated. If the scope is fuzzy, the conformance claims behind it cannot be trusted.
No Audit Behind the Report
An ACR without an accessibility audit is a guess. The Evaluation Methods Used section should describe the methodology: which assistive technologies were used, which browsers and operating systems were covered, and how the work was conducted.
If that section is blank, says “internal review,” or reads like marketing copy, the ACR likely was not backed by a real evaluation. A proper audit identifies the issues that inform every conformance call in the table.
Everything Marked “Supports”
No real product fully conforms to WCAG across every criterion on the first attempt. An ACR that marks every applicable criterion as Supports, with empty remarks, is a red flag.
Honest reports show Partially Supports calls with specific remarks about known issues and planned remediation. That kind of transparency is what procurement teams actually want to see.
Signatures, Dates, and Author
Check who signed the ACR and when. An older date with no recent product changes referenced suggests the report is stale. An ACR with no listed author or company carries less weight than one signed by a named auditor at an accessibility firm.
Independently issued ACRs from accessibility companies hold more credibility than self-attestations, particularly in enterprise procurement.
Reading an ACR in Five Minutes
A fast review pass: confirm the edition on the cover page, read the Product Description, scan the Evaluation Methods Used section, then spot-check ten random rows in the conformance table. If the remarks are specific and the conformance terms are used correctly, the document is likely sound. If not, ask for clarification before moving forward.
FAQ
Should I reject an ACR that has obvious errors?
Not always. Ask the vendor for clarification first. Many errors are clerical and the vendor can revise the document. If the underlying audit is missing or the conformance approach is wrong, that is a deeper issue and worth pushing back on.
What is the difference between an ACR and a VPAT?
The VPAT is the template. The ACR is the completed document that uses the template. People often say “VPAT” when they mean ACR, but the two terms refer to different things.
How often should an ACR be updated?
ACRs do not have a formal expiration. Update the ACR after significant product changes, after a new audit cycle, or when a buyer requests current documentation.
Can a vendor write its own ACR without an audit?
Technically yes. In practice, an ACR without an accessibility audit behind it carries little weight in procurement. Buyers increasingly expect independently issued reports backed by a real evaluation.
If you need help reviewing an ACR or producing one that holds up to procurement scrutiny, Contact Kris.