Generated file currentAuthoring: Content completeWhat file status means
This status reports only whether the generated procedure matches the current controlled source hash. It is not independent content verification, regulatory approval, product evidence or a conformance decision.
Recorded standards review: No optional specialist review recorded. Next review: Not scheduled.
Have assigned reviewers independently score version-frozen examples, measure agreement and resolve differences without rewriting their original decisions.
Available formats
Use this test in the format you need
The HTML procedure includes the working worksheet. JSON provides the structured source data. Editable Markdown files are delivered inside package downloads.
Have assigned reviewers independently score version-frozen examples, measure agreement and resolve differences without rewriting their original decisions.
What this result means: This procedure determines whether Run the version-frozen execution-team calibration meets its stated expectations for the recorded targets and accessibility-quality-control. Unexecuted targets, states and environments remain outside that result.
Why it matters
Detect inconsistent procedure interpretation and unreliable decisions before production findings support claims. People most likely affected: people affected by assessment decisions whose reliability depends on consistent, evidence-based procedure execution. Uncalibrated reviewers may reach conflicting results, hide uncertainty or create misleading accessibility claims. In the recorded accessibility-quality-control environment, use frozen fixtures, independent scoring and documented reconciliation; unresolved assessor disagreement can turn the same evidence into inconsistent client findings.
When to use it
Apply before execution agents use a new or materially revised procedure for production assessment and at the governance-defined recalibration interval.
Confirm before starting
Is the procedure version frozen?
Does the calibration suite cover all five outcomes plus material exceptions and borderline cases?
Were expected decisions separately reviewed and kept hidden from assigned reviewers during scoring?
Are agreement thresholds and review rules fixed before results are known?
Mark it not applicable only when
No execution-agent cohort is assigned to use the procedure. This does not make the procedure itself reliable or approved.
Exceptions
This project quality-control method has no normative exception. Any permitted exclusion must be defined in the frozen quality plan and reported as a coverage limitation.
This source does not override WCAG or create an additional WCAG conformance requirement.
Supporting and advisory guidance
Supporting sources are identified in the mappings and source register. They do not add conformance requirements.
Evidence specification
Frozen package
Catalogue/procedure/fixture versions and hashes, reviewed answer-key custody, cohort, conflicts, metric and threshold.
Use a redacted extract or evidence reference. Do not include credentials, secrets or unnecessary personal data.
Independent source records
Every auditor's original outcomes, evidence, rationale and timestamps.
Use a redacted extract or evidence reference. Do not include credentials, secrets or unnecessary personal data.
Agreement calculation
Inputs, calculation version, metric, confusion matrix and threshold comparison.
Use a redacted extract or evidence reference. Do not include credentials, secrets or unnecessary personal data.
Adjudication and action
Disagreement classification, evidence, decision, owner, changes and rerun result.
Use a redacted extract or evidence reference. Do not include credentials, secrets or unnecessary personal data.
Quality review
Distinct reviewer identity, method/version, decision time, scope, limitations and next calibration date.
Use a redacted extract or evidence reference. Do not include credentials, secrets or unnecessary personal data.
Worked example and outcome calibration
A11Y-QC-002-WORKED-001: representative worked example
Context: Representative synthetic example for Version-frozen calibration set on a fictional, version-frozen product target; no client or participant execution occurred.
Inspected: The tester follows S2 (Collect blinded independent decisions) using the target, required state, tool and repeat rule stated in this procedure.
Observed output: After the tester completes the Version-frozen calibration set scenario named Collect blinded independent decisions, the recorded observation for the target is inconsistent with the required result: Original decisions are complete, independently produced and immutable.
Evidence:
example-evidence-001: target and state record for Each execution agent's independent outcome and evidence for every passed, failed, inapplicable, cantTell and untested calibration fixture.
example-evidence-002: contemporaneous observation from the named method — Agent/fixture IDs, versions, outcomes, evidence, rationale, exception decisions and completion timestamp.
example-evidence-003: comparison note linking the actual observation to the expected result and claim boundary
Tester reasoning: The recorded observation does not demonstrate the expected result: Original decisions are complete, independently produced and immutable. The failed decision is limited to this synthetic target and state; unexecuted coverage is not inferred.
Decision: failed
Finding: A11Y-QC-002-example-finding-001 — Run the version-frozen execution-team calibration: expected result is not demonstrated. The represented barrier may affect People affected by assessment decisions whose reliability depends on consistent, evidence-based procedure execution.
Remediation: Change the represented target or process so it demonstrates this result: Original decisions are complete, independently produced and immutable. Then rerun the affected step and every dependent variation.
Reviewer feedback: The reviewer confirms applicability, environment, actual-versus-expected comparison, evidence references and bounded wording; unsupported product-wide or conformance language is removed.
Final client wording: Synthetic training finding: the sampled Run the version-frozen execution-team calibration target does not meet the procedure expectation in the recorded state. User impact and broader scope require evidence from the buyer's real execution.
Retest: Synthetic retest example: after the represented change, repeat the failed step plus material error and recovery states. Close the finding only when new evidence demonstrates the expected result; otherwise retain the non-pass outcome.
Boundary: This is a representative, synthetic worked example for training and calibration. It is not evidence from a client product, participant or real assistive-technology execution.
Outcome calibration
Passed
The blinded execution-agent cohort meets the predeclared threshold on a frozen suite, no material dispute remains and a distinct verification agent records the scoped readiness decision.
All quality-control gates are met for the identified cohort and version.
Failed
Auditors systematically mark blocked executions as cantTell target outcomes and the verified rerun still misses the threshold.
The control fails because outcome architecture remains unreliable.
Not applicable
No auditor is assigned to use this procedure in production.
The control has no cohort target; the procedure is not thereby approved.
Cannot tell
The answer key's independent review record is missing, so agreement with it cannot establish correctness.
The evidence cannot support a defensible quality decision.
Not tested
The suite is frozen, but one assigned auditor has not completed the cases.
The cohort calibration remains incomplete.
Sampling, complete processes and platform limitations
Apply this control to the preselected assessment sample. Do not change the sample or threshold after results are known.
If this check is part of a user journey, test the selected journey from start to finish, including relevant errors and recovery. Record any path that was not tested.
Quality-control evidence measures method reliability; it is not product accessibility or conformance evidence.
Check relevant browser, tool or assistive-technology release notes before assigning unexpected behaviour to the product.
If responsibility is unclear, record the reproducible behaviour and use cannot tell until it is resolved.
Related procedures
No related procedure is recorded.
ACT rules and WCAG technique traceability
This is a project-authored manual procedure, not a W3C Approved ACT Rule. An ACT result can support only the part of this procedure covered by that rule. It does not replace the remaining manual or assistive-technology checks.
No supporting W3C Approved ACT Rule is selected for this procedure.
This specialist procedure is not assigned to one WCAG success criterion.
Review history and source register
2026.08.27-rc.9 — Reworked for plain language, case-focused steps, scoped evidence and transparent draft review status.
2026.08.27-rc.9 — Migrated to professional catalogue schema v3 with separated outcomes, structured authority, applicability, evidence, decision and review records.
2026.08.27-rc.9 — Specialist procedure mapped to its task family and current first-party platform guidance and checked for internal consistency; competent review and real execution remain separate.
2026.08.27-rc.9 — Replaced migrated boilerplate with a case-specific reference implementation and completed generated-file integrity review.
2026.08.27-rc.9 — Added explicit preparation and variation/recovery steps plus a bounded representative worked example for paid-template use.
2026.08.27-rc.9 — Procedure guidance and presentation simplified without changing draft governance status.
Review decision: pending. Open issues: No production calibration run, live execution evidence, agreement metric or organisational release decision is claimed.; The calibration record is an internal quality control, not independent verification; production release authority remains separate.