The Details section is the core of any VPAT. It records how a product performs against each applicable WCAG success criterion, with a conformance level and supporting remarks. Each entry should include three things: the criterion identifier and name, the conformance level, and remarks explaining the rationale or citing specific issues. Every entry must reflect findings from a manual accessibility evaluation of the product. Vague language, marketing claims, and unsupported “Supports” ratings are the most common reasons an ACR loses credibility with procurement teams.
| Element | What It Captures |
|---|---|
| Criterion identifier | The WCAG number and name (for example, 1.1.1 Non-text Content). |
| Conformance level | Supports, Partially Supports, Does Not Support, or Not Applicable. |
| Remarks and explanations | Specific notes tied to evaluation findings, including known issues and context. |
| Scope alignment | Entries reflect the product, version, and pages or screens defined in scope. |
| Evaluation-backed evidence | Each rating maps to evaluated criteria from a manual evaluation, not assumptions. |
The Criterion Identifier and Name
Every row in the Details section starts with the WCAG criterion identifier, written exactly as it appears in the standard. That includes the number and the official name.
For a WCAG 2.1 AA report, the Details section covers all Level A and Level AA criteria. The VPAT organizes these into separate tables by conformance level. In the International edition, the WCAG tables also cross-reference the corresponding Section 508 and EN 301 549 criteria. The numbering must match the standard exactly, because even a small typo can confuse procurement reviewers.
The Conformance Level
Each criterion gets one of four ratings:
Supports: The product meets the criterion across the evaluated scope.
Partially Supports: Some functionality meets the criterion, but issues exist.
Does Not Support: The criterion is not met.
Not Applicable: The criterion does not apply to the product (for example, no pre-recorded audio).
The temptation in many ACRs is to default to “Supports” without evidence. That is the fastest way to lose credibility with a buyer’s accessibility reviewer. Ratings must come from an evaluation that assessed the product against each criterion.
What Should Go in the Remarks Column?
The remarks column is where the Details section either earns or loses trust. Strong remarks are specific, written in plain language, and tied directly to evaluation findings.
For a Partially Supports or Does Not Support rating, the remarks should describe the issue clearly. Example: “Form inputs in the registration flow lack programmatic labels, preventing screen reader users from identifying field purpose.” That kind of note tells a procurement team exactly what the product owner knows and what work remains.
For a Supports rating, a brief confirmation is enough. For Not Applicable, explain why the criterion does not apply.
Avoid marketing language. Avoid hedging. Avoid blanket statements like “The product is fully accessible.” Reviewers see through it.
How Does Scope Affect the Details Section?
The Details section only describes what was evaluated. If the evaluation covered the marketing site and the customer dashboard, the ACR cannot speak to the mobile app. Scope must be defined clearly elsewhere in the document, and the Details section must align with that scope.
This is why the evaluation and the ACR are connected. Without a manual evaluation covering the right pages, screens, or flows, the Details section becomes guesswork. Scans only flag approximately 25% of issues, so an ACR built from scan data alone leaves most of the criteria unverified.
VPAT details are discussed further here.
Common Mistakes in the Details Section
A few patterns weaken ACRs more than anything else:
Marking everything “Supports” with no remarks or evidence.
Writing remarks that describe intent rather than reality (“We plan to address this”).
Inconsistent ratings across similar criteria.
Copying remarks from another product’s ACR.
Skipping rows or leaving conformance levels blank.
Procurement reviewers compare ACRs side by side. A document with vague or padded remarks loses to one with honest, specific entries, even when the honest one shows more issues.
Why Honest Remarks Win Contracts
Buyers are not looking for a perfect score. They are looking for a vendor who understands accessibility and can show their work. An ACR with Partially Supports ratings and clear remarks signals maturity. An ACR with all Supports ratings and no detail signals risk.
This is why Accessible.org pairs every ACR with a full evaluation report. The remarks in the Details section connect back to the identified issues in the evaluation, giving reviewers a verifiable path from claim to evidence.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who should write the remarks in the Details section?
The remarks should be written by, or based on the work of, the evaluator who assessed the product. ACRs backed by a dedicated (manual) audit carry more weight with procurement teams than self-issued ones, because the remarks reflect a third-party review rather than internal opinion.
How long should each remark be?
Long enough to be specific, short enough to read at a glance. Two or three sentences for issues. One sentence for confirmations. The goal is clarity, not volume.
Can a Details section reference an external evaluation report?
Yes. Many ACRs note in the remarks that detailed findings are available in an accompanying evaluation report. This keeps the ACR readable while preserving the technical depth buyers may request.
What happens if the product changes after the ACR is published?
ACRs do not have a formal expiration date. After significant product changes, the Details section should be updated to reflect the new state of the product, ideally backed by a fresh evaluation.
The Details section is what buyers actually read. Get it right and the rest of the ACR carries more weight. Get it wrong and the whole document loses credibility.
Learn more about VPAT and ACR services from Accessible.org or Contact Accessible.org to get started.
