---
title: "Accessibility statement"
description: "A dated, honest statement of what has and has not been assessed, written so that a reviewer can tell the difference."
url: "https://opsinjs.pensievelabs.org/accessibility/accessibility-statement"
source: "https://opsinjs.pensievelabs.org/accessibility/accessibility-statement.md"
section: "Accessibility"
kind: "accessibility"
reviewed: "2026-09-20"
reviewer: "design"
aliases: ["conformance claim", "known issues", "statement of accessibility"]
---

> Elements written as `<PascalCase … />` below are opsinjs documentation
> components. Their attributes are the content: the values they render are
> generated from `tokens/*.json` and `registry/catalogue.ts` and are
> published separately at https://opsinjs.pensievelabs.org/r/index.json and under the Reference
> section.
> Nothing is missing from this page. The data simply does not live in
> the prose.

<PageTemplate kind="accessibility" />

## What we guarantee [#what-we-guarantee]

**Statement date: 2 September 2026.** This statement covers the opsinjs design
system and its documentation site. It does not cover any product built with them.

### The claim [#the-claim]

opsinjs makes **no conformance claim** against WCAG 2.2 or any other
accessibility standard, at any level.

That is not modesty. Every one of the sixty catalogue components has now been
audited against WCAG 2.2 AA, in a static source pass and a rendered pass, and the
findings were fixed in the same change. That audit was run by the authors of the
components, not by an independent reviewer, so it cannot ground a conformance
claim: a conformance claim requires independent evaluation evidence, and there is
none. What may be said is what was done, that the catalogue was audited against
WCAG 2.2 AA by its own authors, and no more. See
[ADR 0025](../project/decisions/0025-the-audit-is-author-run.mdx) for how the
audit was run and why it is not independent.

### What we do claim [#what-we-do-claim]

Three narrower things, each of which is checkable:

1. **The published design decisions are accessibility-led,** and each one names
   the criterion it serves and the failure it prevents. Those decisions are on
   the pages linked from [Accessibility](./index.mdx).
2. **Every accessibility number published anywhere on this site is generated by a
   named, committed script and is dated.** No figure is typed by an author, and
   the build fails if a regenerated figure differs from the committed one.
3. **Known gaps are published on the page they affect.** There is a *Known gaps*
   section on every page in this pillar and it is never empty by omission.

### Scope [#scope]

| In scope                                                                                                 | Out of scope                                                                              |
| -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| The opsinjs token layer and stylesheets                                                                  | Any product built with opsinjs                                                            |
| The documentation site at this domain                                                                    | Third-party sites linked from it                                                          |
| The component specifications and the sixty implementations, audited against WCAG 2.2 AA by their authors | An independent review of that audit, and a clinical review, neither of which has happened |

## What you own [#what-you-own]

If you are shipping a product built on opsinjs and you need an accessibility
statement of your own, you cannot inherit this one. Yours must describe *your*
product, *your* evaluation and *your* known issues. What you may reasonably
reuse: the token-pair contrast measurements, once generated, cited with the date
and version you took them from.

If you are procuring, the artefact you probably want is the
[conformance report](./conformance-report.mdx), which is an ACR skeleton with
every criterion marked *Not Evaluated*.

## How to check [#how-to-check]

Do not take this statement on trust. Every claim in it is verifiable from the
repository:

<Steps>
  ### Verify the audit claim [#verify-the-audit-claim]

  Open [Components](../components/index.mdx) and pick any component.
  Its catalogue row records an author-run WCAG 2.2 AA audit and no independent
  accessibility review, and so does each of the other fifty-nine. The status matrix
  on that page prints the same finding as a sentence above the table rather than as
  a column of sixty identical cells. Every component here was audited by its own
  authors, none has been independently reviewed, and none has had a clinical
  review.

  ### Verify the "generated numbers" claim [#verify-the-generated-numbers-claim]

  Run `pnpm run contrast` and then `git diff`. If the committed numbers differ from
  the regenerated ones, this statement is wrong and you have found it in under a
  minute.

  ### Verify the "gaps are published" claim [#verify-the-gaps-are-published-claim]

  Open any page in this pillar and read its *Known gaps* section. Compare against
  what the rest of the page claims.

  ### Ask us [#ask-us]

  Report an accessibility problem through the channel on
  [Community](../project/community.mdx). Accessibility reports are treated as
  defects rather than as feedback.
</Steps>

## Measured results [#measured-results]

The only measurement this project publishes is token-pair contrast.
`scripts/check-contrast.mts` computes it from the shipped token values, its
output is committed, and the figures appear on
[Contrast conformance](./contrast-conformance.mdx) and in the
[generated contrast reference](../reference/generated/contrast.mdx) with the date
of the run that produced them.

<NoDataYet script="scripts/capture-registry.mts" what="A measured result for any rendered component">
  No figure has yet been captured for anything that renders. The rendered audit
  pass checked components against WCAG 2.2 AA by hand rather than by capturing a
  number, and the two scripts that would publish one are
  `scripts/check-a11y.mts --layout` and `scripts/capture-registry.mts`. Both need
  Playwright, which is deliberately in no `package.json`, so they run only in the
  nightly workflow and neither publishes a figure here.
</NoDataYet>

## Known gaps [#known-gaps]

Stated plainly, because a statement without this section is not a statement.

* **No independent accessibility review has been performed.** The sixty
  components were audited against WCAG 2.2 AA by their own authors, in a source
  pass and a rendered pass, and the findings were fixed; an author auditing their
  own work is a floor raised, not a verdict delivered. There has been no
  third-party audit and no independent expert review. See
  [ADR 0025](../project/decisions/0025-the-audit-is-author-run.mdx).
* **No clinical review has taken place.** Nothing in the catalogue is for a
  production health surface until a clinician signs it.
* **No assistive technology has been used against this codebase.** Every cell of
  the tested matrix on [Screen readers](./screen-readers.mdx) says *Not tested*.
* **`forced-colors` is unimplemented, and `prefers-contrast` is answered in one
  component rather than in the token layer.** `Surface` drops its translucency
  and widens its edge under `prefers-contrast: more`; nothing else responds to
  either query, and neither behaviour has been measured. See
  [Increased contrast](./increased-contrast.mdx).
* **The automated gates cover source and layout, not conformance.** Three run:
  the contrast diff, `scripts/check-a11y.mts` blocking every pull request on what
  a component's source says, and that script's `--layout` half measuring hit
  area, 1.3x and 200% in a browser once a night. All three check rules this
  project wrote for itself. A passing run means nothing we know how to detect is
  wrong; it is not evidence that any success criterion is met.
* **The documentation site has not been audited against the standard it
  publishes.** See [This site's accessibility](./this-site.mdx).
* **No user testing with disabled people has taken place.**

### Feedback and enforcement [#feedback-and-enforcement]

If something on this site is inaccessible to you, report it through
[Community](../project/community.mdx). We do not operate a formal enforcement or
escalation procedure; if your jurisdiction requires one from a supplier, opsinjs
is not currently a supplier that can satisfy it, and that is worth knowing before
you build on it.

## Updates to this page [#updates-to-this-page]

This statement is reviewed every three months while the system is pre-release,
and re-issued with a new date whenever a claim in it changes. The previous
version is in the changelog.

<Reviewed />

<LastUpdated />