ADA Title II · April 2027

Two annual reports arrive with 17,557 and 25,099 accessibility failures. They leave with fourteen.

Foliowright re-tags an existing PDF in place — it never rebuilds the page, so the document still looks like the document. What it cannot determine, it refuses to guess and hands you instead, with the page and the image attached.

Measured on the six hardest documents we could find

Real PDFs published by six US universities — four annual financial reports, a 155-page accessibility guide, a financial-aid form. No files we wrote ourselves. Checked in PAC 2024, the tool accessibility offices actually open, and in veraPDF, the ISO reference validator.

Before: 46,699
After: 624
Structural defects: 0

Failure counts are veraPDF PDF/UA-1; the warning column is PAC 2024, build 26.1.0.0. Four defects PAC catches and veraPDF does not were found and fixed during this run — including 721 warnings from inline elements not nested in a block. **Measured 7–8 September 2026** against the source documents named above, each still published by its institution. These figures move when the engine does; if one does not reproduce for you, that is a bug and we want to hear about it.
Document	Pages	Before	After
Stanford financial-aid form	2	64	4
Alabama annual report FY24	78	17,557	14
Rutgers annual report	86	25,099	14
Michigan annual report	53	1,229	35
California accessibility guide	155	1,428	240
Pennsylvania annual report	45	1,322	317

PAC still shows a red banner. That is the honest answer.

Every one of those output files still says that, and will keep saying it until a person writes the alt text. PAC's verdict is binary — any unmet checkpoint turns the banner red — and an image with no description is an unmet checkpoint no matter how good the tag tree underneath it is.

Any vendor showing you a green banner on a chart-heavy annual report either wrote the alt text for you, or guessed. We do neither, on purpose. What we can tell you is exactly how many sentences are left and which pages they are on — for a 78-page annual report, nine.

Three things worth reading next

Product

How re-tagging in place works, what it deliberately refuses to do, and where your documents go.

How it works →

Research

The full runs, the benchmark against what Firefox ships, two validators that disagree, and the theories of ours that turned out wrong.

The measurements →

Partners

We need one accessibility office, 20–50 real files and an hour. Nothing to sign, nothing to buy.

The ask →

Where this honestly stands

The engine is validated. The product is not proven. No accessibility office has used it, and the number that decides whether it is worth anything — minutes per document, before and after — does not exist yet, because nobody has let us measure it.

See what we are asking for