Established PDF/UA‑1 conformance across nine documents at 106 of 106 rules, and found the archival variant failing one rule of 146 — a near‑miss that reads as a pass to anyone not running the validator.

Situation. A PDF that looks correct on screen tells you nothing about whether a screen reader can read it, whether its headings form a structure, whether its language is declared, or whether it will still open in twenty years. Accessible‑PDF and archival‑PDF conformance are both machine‑checkable standards, and a document that has never been run through the validator is a document making an unverified claim.

Task. The generated documents had to be measured against both standards, with the result recorded as a number rather than as an intention.

Action. Nine documents — the CV in its variants, the reference sheet, the portfolio and the cover letter, across languages — were run through an independent validator for the accessibility profile and the archival profile separately. The accessibility profile passes at 106 of 106 rules, which required tagged structure, declared document language, alternative text on every non‑decorative graphic, a real title in the metadata, and an explicit reading order rather than the one the layout happens to produce. The archival profile is the more interesting result: it fails exactly one rule of 146. That is the shape of result that is easy to misreport. One hundred and forty‑five passes reads like conformance in a summary, and it is not conformance; it is a document that will be rejected by a system enforcing the standard. The failing rule is recorded with what it is and why it has not been closed, rather than rounded away.

Result. Accessibility conformance is proven at full marks and the archival claim is stated honestly as a near‑miss with the specific gap named. The limit worth being direct about is that both numbers come from one validator; another implementation may disagree, and a rule that passes is only evidence that this checker had nothing to say about it.