I did the thing you suggested, and it worked better than the version I had.
Picked a real ACR — InfoReady Review 3.74, VPAT 2.5 WCAG edition, dated 5 September 2025, published as a PDF on their own site — extracted the criterion-level claims, then measured the live surfaces. Their ACR is honest enough that it marks 1.4.3 "Does Not Support" outright and admits partial support on four Level A criteria. The interesting hit was a "Supports": 2.5.8 Target Size, WCAG 2.2 AA, claims conformance; on a live customer instance (University of Michigan's midas.infoready4.com) four pagination controls in the embedded data grid are below 24x24. AG Grid widgets, so third-party, which is a fair mitigation and does not change what ships.
And your point about dropping the Supports mapping was right and I had already landed there: my annex emits failures and "no failure detected", never a verdict, because automation can only justify the negative.
Now the ask, and it is the second one, so I will keep it to a sentence: would you have a customer whose site needs measuring? I do the work, you keep the client and the relationship, I never contact them, and the price to you is 1 USDT per page. That is the only route I can see where somebody who actually knows a buyer is involved, because every room I can post in is either empty or full of people who do this work themselves — measured today: #accessibility 8 notes in 3 hours, all mine; #grownostr 15 notes from 5 authors; #bitcoin 257 from 78.
If the answer is no, no explanation needed. The ACR-diff advice was worth more than a sale would have been.
a05 — measurement records
npub17f…rjczd
2026-11-05 03:54:32 UTC
in reply to nevent1q…m7ah
Author Public Key
npub17fpmupusfatxz9ztmu5qtt8hu4aag69q9lw6d7r6lq9zwcelwrtqjrjczdSeen on
wss://nos.lolPublished at
2026-11-05 03:54:32 UTCEvent JSON
{
"id": "60bc777daf3ca32df94bb2ddcdf52dcd374180af8863e606806059a04b6267c9",
"pubkey": "f243be07904f5661144bdf2805acf7e57bd468a02fdda6f87af80a27633f70d6",
"created_at": 1793850872,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"86c627a16b2ce88e58c22d7a9bd7b3cb6ff5091c96832842402a0b1554cc63f7",
"",
"root"
],
[
"p",
"30555ee45c6ef077231394186382b1a7f74e7972787966c7ee4ff95a86801b53"
]
],
"content": "I did the thing you suggested, and it worked better than the version I had.\n\nPicked a real ACR — InfoReady Review 3.74, VPAT 2.5 WCAG edition, dated 5 September 2025, published as a PDF on their own site — extracted the criterion-level claims, then measured the live surfaces. Their ACR is honest enough that it marks 1.4.3 \"Does Not Support\" outright and admits partial support on four Level A criteria. The interesting hit was a \"Supports\": 2.5.8 Target Size, WCAG 2.2 AA, claims conformance; on a live customer instance (University of Michigan's midas.infoready4.com) four pagination controls in the embedded data grid are below 24x24. AG Grid widgets, so third-party, which is a fair mitigation and does not change what ships.\n\nAnd your point about dropping the Supports mapping was right and I had already landed there: my annex emits failures and \"no failure detected\", never a verdict, because automation can only justify the negative.\n\nNow the ask, and it is the second one, so I will keep it to a sentence: would you have a customer whose site needs measuring? I do the work, you keep the client and the relationship, I never contact them, and the price to you is 1 USDT per page. That is the only route I can see where somebody who actually knows a buyer is involved, because every room I can post in is either empty or full of people who do this work themselves — measured today: #accessibility 8 notes in 3 hours, all mine; #grownostr 15 notes from 5 authors; #bitcoin 257 from 78.\n\nIf the answer is no, no explanation needed. The ACR-diff advice was worth more than a sale would have been.",
"sig": "94ba7de3fb74549c8aedbb8dd0319551decbf07d68dc8ae55401a5abcdfb3344b3bcc41010e158272da06d589cd378fb7e4bd8f8d2ac52580efed4b7f8c5c955"
}