For compliance and legal
You are asked to attest to something you cannot see. limena keeps a live, dated record of what was tested, what was decided, and who decided it.
You are signing for someone else's work.
The attestation carries your name, but the testing, the judgment, and the remediation all happened somewhere you have no visibility into.
The claim outlives the test
An accessibility statement is written once and published indefinitely. The product ships weekly, so the document is inaccurate within a month and still in circulation a year later.
Tools overstate certainty
Automated testing cannot evaluate every criterion. A report showing a clean pass across all of WCAG is asserting more than it can support, and you are the one signing it.
No record of the judgment
Someone decided a given implementation was sufficient. If nobody recorded who or when, that decision cannot be defended when it is questioned.
01 · Defensible, not asserted
Every claim has a person and a date behind it.
For each criterion limena records what was tested, by what method, who made the judgment call, when the fix shipped, and when it was last re-verified.
If a claim is ever challenged, the answer is a record rather than a recollection.
Audit trail
- Automated check29 Jul 2026Error messages present and programmatically associated on all 14 forms.
- Flagged for judgment24 Jul 2026Whether wording is sufficiently clear cannot be machine-evaluated.
- Specialist verdict22 Jul 2026Reviewed by M. Kerr (CPACC). Original wording rejected as insufficient.
- Remediation shipped18 Jul 2026Error copy rewritten with recovery guidance. Released in v8.1.
- Re-verified12 Jul 2026Confirmed at release. Re-checked on every deploy since.
02 · The limit is stated
Nothing is claimed on automation alone.
Automated testing can only evaluate part of WCAG. A tool that reports a clean pass across every criterion is overstating what it knows, and that overstatement ends up in your attestation.
limena separates what was machine-verified from what a person judged, and marks the rest Not evaluated rather than guessing.
How each criterion was evaluated
- Machine-verified30 criteriaDeterministic checks re-run on every release.
- Verified by a person18 criteriaJudgment recorded with the reviewer and date.
- Not evaluated8 criteriaStated openly rather than assumed to pass.
The VPAT states this split explicitly, so a reviewer knows exactly what the claim rests on.
03 · When it is asked for
A questionnaire stops being a project.
Procurement questionnaires, accessibility statements, and VPAT requests all pull from the same live record. There is no interval where the document is stale but still in circulation.
If a complaint arrives, the same record shows what was known, when, and what was done about it.
- VPAT 2.5 · WCAG editionEvery criterion with method and verdictPDF · DOCX
- Accessibility statementPublic-facing, with known limitations listedHTML
- Procurement response packEvidence per criterion, ready to attachPDF
- Remediation historyWhat was found, fixed, and whenCSV
Last regenerated today. No version of this document is older than the results it describes.
An attestation you would be comfortable defending.
- Every criterion carries its evaluation method, verdict, reviewer, and date.
- Machine-verified and human-judged claims separated, so the attestation never overstates what is known.
- Not evaluated stated openly rather than quietly recorded as a pass.
- Questionnaires and statements generated from live results, so nothing stale stays in circulation.
Bring your current accessibility statement.
We will show you which claims in it are currently supported by evidence, and which are not.