By the PDFally accessibility team · Reviewed August 10, 2026

Process resource

PDF remediation quality assurance

A useful QA process explains what was reviewed, what changed, and what remains outside the agreed scope. It does not reduce accessibility to a scanner score.

Download the sample report

Illustrative before-and-after review

This example uses a fictional community-services guide. It demonstrates the specificity a remediation record can provide; it is not a customer case study or conformance claim.

Review areaBeforeAfter remediation
Heading structureBold text tagged as paragraphsLogical H1-H3 hierarchy reflects the document outline
Reading orderSidebar interrupts the main articleMain content is read before related sidebar information
ImagesDecorative mark is announced; chart has no descriptionDecorative content is artifacted; meaningful chart receives contextual alternative text
Data tableCells lack header associationsColumn and row headers are identified and associated with data cells
LinksRepeated “click here” link textLink text identifies each destination in context
Document settingsTitle and language are missingDescriptive title and primary language are set

Manual QA workflow

1. Intake and scope

Confirm the file, intended audience, applicable standard, document purpose, complexity, and requested deliverables.

2. Automated orientation

Use checkers to inventory likely issues and document properties. Automated results guide review but do not establish conformance.

3. Manual structure review

Inspect tags, headings, lists, reading order, artifacts, tables, forms, links, language, bookmarks, and metadata.

4. Content decisions

Evaluate alternative text, instructions, link purpose, table meaning, and other choices that require human context.

5. Interaction checks

Review keyboard order and perform targeted assistive-technology checks appropriate to the document and agreed scope.

6. Final handoff

Confirm requested files open correctly, record completed work and limitations, and attach deliverables to the original submission.

What the report records

  • Document and scope reviewed
  • Review methods and reference standards
  • Representative findings and changes
  • Deliverables supplied
  • Known limitations and follow-up items

Primary standards references

Use the applicable normative standard for requirements and supporting documents for interpretation and techniques.

Continue your review

Use the WCAG checklist to plan an evaluation, or submit a PDF to establish a document-specific scope.