Skip to main content
AccessibleACR Evaluator
Sign UpSign In

Simulation — not a real assessment

Every number on this page is computed from the controls you set, using the same scoring model as the product. Nothing is uploaded, saved, or submitted, and no output here should be quoted as an assessment of any real vendor or organization.

Accessibility Risk Assessment — interactive model

Change any parameter and watch the scores respond. The model separates how your organization governs accessibility from what the vendor’s report claims and how far that report can be trusted — then combines them into one decision.

How the model works

Combined into one decision. Product risk and governance risk are averaged into a single index (AGRI), which drives a recommended decision. Separately, specific warning conditions — a missing report, stale evidence, untested criteria — each fire an audit trigger, and the count sets how much independent verification (IV&V) is advised.

Change any control and every number updates instantly. Watch the scorecard as you go — moved values are flagged with the size of the change.

Start from a scenario

What to notice: Governance gaps in operational control, a year-old vendor self-assessment, and real conformance gaps push this to conditions plus targeted validation.

Governance Profile

Answered once per Operating Unit, not once per vendor. This is the buying organization assessing itself — how much risk your own governance carries into every procurement decision you make.

Start from a profile

Governance Program & Accountability

8 indicators · contributes 35% of the governance base score

25.0Low
Set all 8:
Review the 8 indicatorsHide the 8 indicators
  • A designated individual has primary responsibility for accessibility governance and compliance.
  • Accessibility policies and procedures are documented.
  • Roles and responsibilities for accessibility are formally documented and communicated.
  • Executive leadership regularly reviews accessibility performance and risk.
  • Accessibility is integrated into enterprise governance processes.
  • An accessibility training program exists for relevant personnel.
  • A documented process exists to receive, track, and resolve accessibility complaints.
  • Periodic accessibility program self-assessments are performed.

Contractual Controls & Enforcement

8 indicators · contributes 40% of the governance base score

45.0Moderate
Set all 8:
Review the 8 indicatorsHide the 8 indicators
  • Accessibility requirements are included in ICT solicitations and procurement packages.
  • Vendors are required to submit current VPATs/ACRs during acquisition.
  • Accessibility acceptance criteria are defined before product acceptance.
  • Contracts require remediation of identified accessibility deficiencies.
  • Accessibility-related SLAs / performance expectations are contractually established.
  • The right to independently validate vendor accessibility claims is reserved.
  • Accessibility risks are considered during option exercises and renewals.
  • Vendor accessibility roadmaps are reviewed/monitored when nonconformance exists.

Deployment, Change & Operational Control

8 indicators · contributes 25% of the governance base score

75.0High
Set all 8:
Review the 8 indicatorsHide the 8 indicators
  • Accessibility review is required before deployment of new ICT.
  • Accessibility impacts are evaluated during major changes/upgrades.
  • Regression testing is performed after significant releases.
  • Continuous monitoring for accessibility compliance is performed.
  • Defects are tracked through formal issue management.
  • Periodic reassessment is required during the product lifecycle.
  • Documented accessibility change-control procedures exist.
  • Findings are incorporated into operational risk management.

Recommended decision

Proceed with conditions and targeted validation

Aggregate Governance Risk Index

39.0Low

The single number a decision memo quotes.

Show the mathsHide the maths
Product risk (ARS)
30.4
Governance risk (GRS)
47.5

AGRI = 0.5 × ARS + 0.5 × GRS. With no ACR the ARS term falls back to GRS.

What it's built from

Governance risk (GRS)

47.5
Moderate
Show the mathsHide the maths
Governance — accountability (weight 30)
25.0
Contractual controls (weight 30)
45.0
Deployment & operations (weight 20)
75.0
Mission exposure (weight 20)
57.5

Weighted mean of the four domain risk percentages (weights sum to 100).

Product risk (ARS)

30.4
Low Risk
Show the mathsHide the maths
Criteria counted
42
ICT risk multiplier
×1.161
Marked Not Evaluated
0

(Σ conformance severity ÷ criteria counted) × 100 × ICT multiplier, capped at 100.

Evidence confidence (ECS) — higher is better

64.0
Moderate
Show the mathsHide the maths
completeness
100.0
recency
85.0
independence
25.0
methodology
100.0
tester credentials
25.0
reproducibility
25.0

Weighted blend of six components (completeness .20, recency .15, independence .20, methodology .20, credentials .15, reproducibility .10).

Independent verification

Targeted validation
  • •Does Not Support on applicable criteria
  • •High ICT complexity

Want this on your own procurements?

The full module works from real conformance reports evaluated by the ACR Evaluator, scores every vendor against your organization’s own governance profile, and produces an auditable decision record you can attach to a file.

See how it works

Recommended decision

Proceed with conditions and targeted validation

Aggregate Governance Risk Index

39.0Low

The single number a decision memo quotes.

Show the mathsHide the maths
Product risk (ARS)
30.4
Governance risk (GRS)
47.5

AGRI = 0.5 × ARS + 0.5 × GRS. With no ACR the ARS term falls back to GRS.

What it's built from

Governance risk (GRS)

47.5
Moderate
Show the mathsHide the maths
Governance — accountability (weight 30)
25.0
Contractual controls (weight 30)
45.0
Deployment & operations (weight 20)
75.0
Mission exposure (weight 20)
57.5

Weighted mean of the four domain risk percentages (weights sum to 100).

Product risk (ARS)

30.4
Low Risk
Show the mathsHide the maths
Criteria counted
42
ICT risk multiplier
×1.161
Marked Not Evaluated
0

(Σ conformance severity ÷ criteria counted) × 100 × ICT multiplier, capped at 100.

Evidence confidence (ECS) — higher is better

64.0
Moderate
Show the mathsHide the maths
completeness
100.0
recency
85.0
independence
25.0
methodology
100.0
tester credentials
25.0
reproducibility
25.0

Weighted blend of six components (completeness .20, recency .15, independence .20, methodology .20, credentials .15, reproducibility .10).

Independent verification

Targeted validation
  • •Does Not Support on applicable criteria
  • •High ICT complexity

Quick Links

  • Home
  • How It Works
  • Features
  • Submit your ACR
  • Sample Report
  • Risk Assessment
  • Release Notes

Resources

  • WCAG Overview(opens in new tab)
  • Section 508(opens in new tab)
  • Accessibility Guides(opens in new tab)
  • VPAT Resources(opens in new tab)

Follow Us

Legal

  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions

Contact

  • (833) 922-2377
  • info@iAccessible.com

iAccessible and the ACR Evaluator are Revelo Software products.

Revelo Software(opens in new tab)

© 2026 iAccessible | Powered by Revelo Software LLC™