What “Good” Accessibility Evidence Looks Like (and Why Agencies Get Stuck)
Accessibility delivery often falls apart not at design or development, but at evidence.
Agencies can design and build with accessibility in mind, fix known issues, and still find themselves stuck at the same question near the end of a project:
“How do we prove this is accessible?”
This is where confidence wobbles, approvals stall, and delivery risk appears. Not because the work hasn’t been done, but because the evidence isn’t clear, structured, or defensible.
This guide explains what good accessibility evidence actually looks like in agency delivery, why teams commonly get stuck, and how to avoid the most common mistakes.
Accessibility evidence begins long before final testing; it starts with clarity on scoping and expectations. Using design-stage accessibility guidance helps align teams early on what evidence will be collected and how it will be used.
Why accessibility evidence causes so much friction
Most agencies don’t struggle to do accessibility work. They struggle to document it properly.
Common reasons include:
- unclear expectations around proof
- raw audit outputs that don’t translate to decisions
- confusion between fixes and verification
- fear of overclaiming outcomes
- lack of consistency across projects
Clients don’t want technical dumps.
Developers don’t want vague statements.
Agencies need evidence that supports delivery decisions.
What clients really mean when they ask for “proof”
When clients ask for accessibility evidence, they’re rarely asking for:
- WCAG theory
- technical logs
- absolute guarantees
They want reassurance that:
- accessibility has been addressed responsibly
- risks are understood and documented
- outcomes are defensible
- nothing critical has been ignored
Good evidence answers those concerns clearly — without overreaching.
Common accessibility evidence mistakes agencies make
Before looking at what good evidence includes, it’s worth calling out what causes problems.
Relying on automated scan outputs
Automated results alone don’t demonstrate real usability or conformance.
Treating audits as certificates
Accessibility audits are evidence tools, not pass/fail badges.
Mixing fixes and verification
Fixing issues and proving they’ve been fixed are not the same thing.
Using absolute language
Statements like “fully compliant” or “100% accessible” create unnecessary risk.
What good accessibility evidence actually includes
Strong accessibility evidence is structured, scoped, and transparent.
1. A clear scope statement
Every accessibility evidence pack should start with clarity.
It should define:
- WCAG version and level (e.g. WCAG 2.2 Level AA)
- what was assessed (templates, components, journeys)
- what was excluded
- when testing occurred
Without scope, evidence loses credibility.
2. Structured issue reporting
Evidence should clearly show:
- identified accessibility issues
- severity and user impact
- relevant WCAG references
- prioritisation
This is the core output of WCAG conformance audits, translating findings into something teams can act on.
3. Remediation status and validation
Good evidence distinguishes between:
- issues identified
- issues addressed
- issues verified
This avoids confusion and supports confident decision-making at launch.
Demonstrating that issues were identified, addressed, and verified is essential. This is where combining audit evidence with ongoing WCAG monitoring becomes a powerful signal for quality and organisational readiness.
4. Plain-language explanations
Not every stakeholder is technical.
Strong evidence includes:
- plain-language summaries
- explanations of why issues matter
- context for decisions and trade-offs
This helps non-technical reviewers understand outcomes without panic.
5. Accessibility statements (used carefully)
Accessibility statements can be valuable evidence, when used correctly.
They should:
- reflect actual scope
- acknowledge known limitations
- avoid absolute claims
- describe ongoing commitment
Statements should support transparency, not marketing.
What accessibility evidence is not
To avoid problems, it helps to be clear about what evidence isn’t.
Accessibility evidence is not:
- a legal guarantee
- a permanent state
- a one-time snapshot without context
- a substitute for ongoing maintenance
Evidence isn’t just a technical artifact; it’s something your clients can understand and trust. An agency accessibility platform helps organise findings and stories so stakeholders see the value without confusion.
Good agencies make this explicit.
Evidence quality also influences how accessibility work is priced — see our guide on pricing accessibility for agencies.
How evidence supports smoother delivery
When accessibility evidence is clear:
- approvals move faster
- QA decisions are simpler
- internal teams align more easily
- agencies reduce exposure to rework
- conversations stay calm and factual
Evidence becomes a confidence tool, not a liability.
This is especially true when combined with ongoing WCAG monitoring, which helps agencies track changes and maintain accessibility over time.
If you want to understand how evidence fits into end-to-end delivery, see our guide on applying WCAG in agency delivery.
Where IncluD fits
IncluD helps agencies produce accessibility evidence they can stand behind.
Through WCAG conformance audits, agencies receive structured, prioritised findings aligned to WCAG 2.2 Level AA. With ongoing WCAG monitoring, accessibility is maintained as content and features evolve, reducing the risk of regression.
All evidence is managed through a purpose-built agency accessibility platform, giving teams visibility, consistency, and confidence across projects.
Key takeaways for agencies
Agencies get stuck on accessibility evidence when:
- scope isn’t defined
- outputs aren’t structured
- language overreaches
- verification is unclear
Agencies succeed when evidence:
- is transparent
- is scoped
- reflects reality
- supports delivery decisions
Good accessibility evidence doesn’t promise perfection, it demonstrates responsibility.
