Took WCAG 2.2 Level AA across 32 representative pages — one per template per language — in both colour themes, plus two AAA criteria, with a documented conformance record and a check defending each claim.

Situation. A consultancy that sells engineering judgement and ships an inaccessible website has a credibility problem before it has an accessibility one. The site also has an unusually wide surface for it: three languages, two colour themes, a full print stylesheet, a dark‑first palette, hand‑drawn annotations and an illustrated character — every one of which is a way to fail a criterion in one configuration while passing it in another.

Task. The site had to conform to WCAG 2.2 at Level AA across every page, every language and both themes, and the conformance had to be defended by checks rather than asserted in a document.

Action. A conformance record documents every criterion in scope, each row naming what satisfies it and what checks it. Two Level AAA criteria are taken beyond the target — visual presentation in full, and focus appearance, which is offered rather than claimed. The automation runs an accessibility rule engine with its best‑practice rules enabled rather than only the conformance ones, which is a thirty‑rule difference and mattered immediately: one of the extra rules failed the moment it was switched on, because the brand mark sat outside every landmark on every inner page. A second, slower check runs thirty‑two representative pages across two colour schemes and two widths, and what it asserts is unusual: focus is proven in pixels rather than in the document, by pressing the tab key for real and comparing screenshots, because identical pixels mean the user cannot tell where focus is regardless of what the markup says. It also walks the whole page looking for a keyboard trap, applies the specified text‑spacing overrides, doubles the root font size, and measures line length, justification, centring and paragraph spacing.

Result. Conformance is claimed at Level AA in three languages and two themes, with two AAA criteria beyond it, and every claim has a check behind it. What the site says about that on its own credits page is the honest part: no automated tool finds more than about a third of WCAG failures, and there has been no testing with real assistive technology — that limit is written where a reader will see it rather than left out of the claim.