The VPAT 2.5 International (INT) Edition covers all standards in one document: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), Revised Section 508, and EN 301 549. The completed Accessibility Conformance Report (ACR) must include product identification, contact information, evaluation methods, applicable standards tables, and remarks for each criterion. Each row needs a conformance level (Supports, Partially Supports, Does Not Support, or Not Applicable) and an explanation justifying the rating. The INT edition fits 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 accounts for all standards found in other VPAT editions.
Buyers in the United States typically focus on the WCAG and Section 508 portion, which incorporates WCAG 2.0 AA. Buyers in the European Union focus on the EN 301 549 portion. The shared WCAG section sits at the top of the report to avoid duplication across standards.
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 evaluated for conformance. Cover the evaluator’s methodologies, assistive technology used, and potentially even browser and device combinations.
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 conformance term was assigned. A row that reads “Supports” with no explanation is technically valid but provides no confidence to the reader. Writing strong remarks means referencing specific product areas and noting 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 includes WCAG 2.0, 2.1, and 2.2 in its standard tables. Revised Section 508 formally incorporates WCAG 2.0 AA, while EN 301 549 maps to WCAG 2.1. Most buyers now expect at least WCAG 2.1 AA conformance, and the INT template accommodates all three versions without supplemental tables.
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.
