Partial conformance in a VPAT is documented by marking the success criterion as “Partially Supports” and writing a remark that explains exactly what works, what does not, and where the issue appears. The remark must be specific enough that a procurement reviewer can understand the scope of the issue without contacting the vendor. Vague language weakens the ACR. Clear, factual notes strengthen it.
The goal is honesty paired with precision. An ACR that overstates conformance creates legal and reputational risk. An ACR that documents partial conformance well signals maturity and gives buyers the information they need to make a decision.
| Element | What to Include |
|---|---|
| Conformance Level | Partially Supports |
| Remark Content | What works, what does not, and where the issue appears |
| Scope Reference | Specific pages, screens, components, or user flows affected |
| Audit Source | Findings tied to a manual WCAG evaluation conducted against the chosen standard |
| Tone | Factual and direct, no marketing language |
What Partially Supports Actually Means
The VPAT template defines “Partially Supports” as language indicating that some functionality of the product does not meet the success criterion. It is the correct conformance level whenever a product has identified issues against a criterion, even if most instances pass.
If a single component fails 1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum), the criterion is Partially Supports across the product, not Supports. One issue is enough to move the rating. Reviewers expect this and treat overstated ratings as a credibility issue.
How Do You Write a Strong Remark?
A strong remark answers three questions in plain language. What passes. What does not pass. Where the issue lives in the product.
Weak remark: “Some elements may not meet contrast requirements.”
Strong remark: “Body text and primary buttons meet 4.5:1 contrast. Secondary buttons in the dashboard footer fail at 3.2:1 against the background. Issue confirmed on the Account Settings and Billing screens.”
The second version tells a buyer exactly what they are getting. It also gives the vendor a clear remediation target.
Tying Remarks to Audit Findings
Every Partially Supports rating should map to a specific finding from a manual WCAG evaluation. The evaluation identifies the issue, the location, and the severity. The VPAT remark translates that finding into procurement-friendly language without losing the technical accuracy.
This is why an ACR cannot be filled out responsibly without an audit behind it. Guessing at conformance, or relying only on automated scans (which only flag approximately 25% of issues), produces an ACR that does not hold up under review.
Accessible.org conducts the evaluation first, then writes the ACR using the evaluation data as the source of truth. Every remark traces back to a documented finding.
Scope and Exclusions
Partial conformance often relates to scope. A criterion may be fully supported on the marketing site but partially supported in the authenticated app. Document this clearly in the remark or in the Notes column at the top of the ACR.
If certain areas of the product were not evaluated, state that. An ACR covering only the customer-facing portion of a SaaS product should say so. Reviewers prefer a narrower scope honestly described over a broad scope vaguely covered.
Common Mistakes That Weaken an ACR
Marking everything Supports to look better. Reviewers are skilled at spotting unrealistic ACRs. A product with zero Partially Supports ratings across WCAG 2.1 AA almost never reflects reality.
Using boilerplate remarks. Copy-pasted language like “product generally meets this criterion” tells the reviewer nothing.
Mixing standards. If the ACR is built against WCAG 2.1 AA, do not reference 2.2 criteria in remarks unless the evaluation covered both.
Leaving remarks blank. A Partially Supports rating without a remark is incomplete. Every non-Supports rating needs explanation.
When to Update an ACR After Remediation
ACRs do not have a formal expiration. They reflect the state of the product at the time of evaluation. After significant remediation work, the ACR should be updated to reflect the new conformance picture.
If a Partially Supports rating becomes Supports because the issue was fixed and re-evaluated, the remark is removed and the rating is updated. If new issues are identified during a follow-up evaluation, those become new Partially Supports entries with their own remarks.
VPAT details are discussed further here.
Frequently Asked Questions
Should I get an audit before completing a VPAT?
Yes. The evaluation identifies which criteria are fully supported, partially supported, or not supported. Without that data, the ACR is guesswork. Accessible.org pairs the evaluation with the ACR so the documentation is grounded in real findings.
Can a product with many Partially Supports ratings still win contracts?
Often yes. Buyers expect imperfection. What they look for is honest documentation, a clear remediation plan, and active progress. An accurate ACR with twelve Partially Supports ratings reads better than a polished one with zero, because reviewers know the second version is unrealistic.
What is the difference between Partially Supports and Does Not Support?
Partially Supports means some functionality meets the criterion and some does not. Does Not Support means the criterion is not met anywhere in the evaluated scope. The evaluation findings determine which rating applies.
Do I need to list every instance of an issue in the remark?
No. Describe the pattern, the locations where it appears, and a representative example. The full inventory of instances belongs in the audit report. The ACR remark is a summary that points to the issue clearly without becoming a defect log.
Documenting partial conformance well is one of the strongest signals a vendor can send to a procurement team. It shows the work was done, the findings were taken seriously, and the path forward is real.
To request a VPAT and audit through Accessible.org, contact our team.
