Skip to content

docs(governance): register accessibility compliance - #6177

Open
bokelley wants to merge 2 commits into
mainfrom
docs/accessibility-compliance-governance
Open

docs(governance): register accessibility compliance#6177
bokelley wants to merge 2 commits into
mainfrom
docs/accessibility-compliance-governance

Conversation

@bokelley

@bokelley bokelley commented Aug 3, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Summary

Implements the narrowed 3.2 slice from #4740:

  • registers accessibility_compliance in the canonical governance validation-category table
  • shows it in sync_plans category readback and parameter documentation
  • explicitly distinguishes technical accessibility governance from Content Standards content-suitability evaluation
  • leaves structured per-asset creative failures to Creative errors: structured accessibility violations #6169

No Content Standards schema, calibration task, format schema, or governance lifecycle change is included; those mechanisms already exist.

Verification

  • focused category placement test passes
  • schema-link lint passes
  • docs-only change correctly carries no protocol changeset

Closes #4740.

@bokelley
bokelley marked this pull request as ready for review August 3, 2026 14:38

@aao-secretariat aao-secretariat Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ladon verdict: Approve

Approve — small, well-scoped docs PR registering accessibility_compliance as a canonical governance validation category.

What I checked:

  • Schema↔docs coherence: category_id in sync-plans-response.json is an open string (no enum), and the referenced format.accessibility.wcag_level / requires_accessible_assets fields exist in format.json — no wire-shape edit required, no drift.
  • Changeset correctness: a minor changeset is the right type for a non-breaking, additive governance-category registration. Not a breaking-class change, so the hard breaking-change escalation gate does not apply.
  • No high-risk paths, no gated paths.

Decision path: No critical/high findings (row 1 n/a). gated_paths is false, so row 2 does not fire despite review_decision: REVIEW_REQUIRED. No deletions, no medium data-loss/schema/infra findings, no author-team gate, fewer than three mediums. The single finding is low (PR body verification note contradicts the added minor changeset — cosmetic, the changeset itself is correct). Falls through to row 9 → approve.

Nit (non-blocking): .changeset/register-accessibility-governance-category.md — the PR body claims it 'carries no protocol changeset' while a minor changeset is present; consider reconciling the PR description.

@aao-secretariat aao-secretariat Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ladon verdict: Approve

Approve — docs-only Normative (non-breaking) addition registering the accessibility_compliance governance validation category.

What I checked:

  • No wire-shape change: category_id in sync-plans-response.json is a free-form string (not an enum), so adding a new category value is not schema drift.
  • Field references (format.accessibility.wcag_level, requires_accessible_assets at core/format.json:591-604) are accurate against the schema.
  • Docs-only, no-changeset is correct — docs/governance/** is outside PROTOCOL_SCOPED_PATHS.
  • Canonical-set framing does not contradict the opaque categories_evaluated labels in check_governance.mdx.
  • Content-presence test ships alongside the docs change.

Gates:

  • gated_paths: false — row 2 does not apply despite review_decision: REVIEW_REQUIRED.
  • No no-auto-approve team match (row 7 N/A).
  • high_risk: false; no deleted/modified high-risk files.
  • No critical/high/medium findings.

This is an Editorial/Normative non-breaking docs addition, not a Breaking-class change, so the human-ratification hard gate does not apply. No findings fired rows 1–8; falls through to row 9 → approve.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

RFC: Add accessibility as a first-class category in Content Standards

1 participant