The VPAT 2.5 International (INT) Edition requires conformance reporting against three standards in a single document: WCAG 2.0, EN 301 549, and Revised Section 508. The completed Accessibility Conformance Report (ACR) must include product identification, contact information, evaluation methods used, applicable standards tables, and supporting notes for each criterion. Each row needs a conformance level (Supports, Partially Supports, Does Not Support, or Not Applicable) along with remarks that explain the rating. The INT edition is the right choice when a buyer operates across multiple regions and wants one document covering global standards.
| Component | What It Covers |
|---|---|
| Product information | Name, version, description, and date of report |
| Contact information | Vendor contact for questions about the ACR |
| Standards covered | WCAG 2.0, Revised Section 508, and EN 301 549 |
| Evaluation methods | How the product was evaluated and by whom |
| Conformance tables | Row-by-row ratings with remarks for each criterion |
| Legal disclaimer | Standard ITI disclaimer included by default |
Which Standards Does the INT Edition Cover?
The International edition consolidates three frameworks into one ACR. WCAG 2.0 Level A and AA criteria appear first, followed by Revised Section 508 chapters, and then EN 301 549 clauses that align with European procurement requirements.
Buyers in the United States typically focus on the Section 508 portion. Buyers in the European Union focus on the EN 301 549 portion. Both reference WCAG 2.0 as the technical baseline, which is why the WCAG section sits at the top.
What Goes in the Product and Contact Sections?
The top of the report identifies the product being evaluated. This includes the product name, version number, a short description of what the product does, and the report date. Vague entries here weaken the credibility of the entire document.
Contact information lists the vendor representative who can answer questions about the ACR. Some companies list a generic accessibility inbox. Either approach works as long as the contact is monitored.
How Are Evaluation Methods Documented?
The evaluation methods section explains how the product was reviewed for conformance. This is where the supporting audit work is referenced. The methods statement should describe the evaluator’s approach, including assistive technology used, browser and device combinations, and whether the evaluation was conducted by an internal team or an independent auditor.
An ACR backed by an independent (manual) accessibility audit carries far more weight in procurement than a self-attestation. Scans only flag approximately 25% of issues, so an ACR built on automated checks alone will not hold up under buyer scrutiny.
What Do the Conformance Tables Require?
Each criterion gets a row. Each row gets a conformance level and a remarks field.
The four conformance levels:
Supports: The product meets the criterion across all relevant content.
Partially Supports: Some content meets the criterion; some does not.
Does Not Support: The product does not meet the criterion.
Not Applicable: The criterion does not apply to the product.
Remarks should describe what was reviewed and why the rating was assigned. A row that reads “Supports” with no explanation is technically valid but provides no confidence to the reader. Strong remarks reference specific product areas and note any caveats.
The VPAT process is walked through in detail here.
When Should You Choose the INT Edition Over Others?
The four VPAT editions are WCAG, Section 508, EN 301 549, and INT. The WCAG edition works for most SaaS companies whose buyers care primarily about WCAG conformance. The Section 508 edition fits federal procurement in the United States. The EN 301 549 edition fits European public sector buyers.
The INT edition is the right pick when a single product is sold globally and procurement teams in different regions will request the ACR. Rather than producing three separate documents, the INT edition covers all bases in one report.
What Makes a VPAT 2.5 INT Edition Defensible?
An ACR is only as strong as the evaluation behind it. A defensible INT edition report shares a few traits:
It is backed by a thorough manual evaluation, not a scan. It is conducted by qualified evaluators with documented methodology. It contains specific remarks that reference real product behavior. It includes honest “Partially Supports” and “Does Not Support” ratings where warranted. It has an accurate scope statement that matches what was actually evaluated.
An ACR with every row marked “Supports” and no audit behind it is a red flag. Sophisticated buyers know what a real evaluation produces, and they push back when the document does not match reality.
Frequently Asked Questions
Do I need an audit before filling in a VPAT 2.5 INT Edition?
Yes. The conformance ratings on the report should reflect what an evaluation identified, not assumptions. Without an audit, the remarks field has nothing concrete to reference, and the ACR loses credibility in procurement review.
Can the INT edition reference WCAG 2.1 or 2.2?
The VPAT 2.5 INT template uses WCAG 2.0 as its baseline because that is what Revised Section 508 incorporates. If a buyer requests WCAG 2.1 AA or WCAG 2.2 AA conformance specifically, you can produce an ACR aligned to that version using the WCAG edition or include supplemental tables. Many buyers now expect 2.1 AA at minimum.
How long does an INT edition ACR stay current?
ACRs do not have a formal expiration date. Update the document after significant product changes, after a new audit cycle, or when a buyer requests a current version. Most companies refresh annually at a minimum.
Who should fill out the ACR?
An independent accessibility company adds credibility because the evaluator has no incentive to overstate conformance. Internal teams can fill out an ACR, but buyers increasingly prefer third-party reports.
The INT edition rewards specificity. A report that names what was evaluated, how it was evaluated, and where issues were identified will serve buyers far better than a generic document with vague remarks.
Contact Accessible.org for VPAT services and audit work that supports a defensible ACR.
