Capability Boundaries & Scope of Responsibility

Last updated: January 13, 2026. Written for institutional reviewers, accessibility teams, and evaluators.

This document defines the technical scope and operational boundaries of Inkable Docs. It serves as a calibration reference for institutional evaluators to understand exactly where automation ends and human judgment begins. For detailed definitions of the technical benchmarks we use, see our Accessibility Standards page.

1. What Inkable Docs automates

Inkable Docs performs technical analysis of document structures to identify conformance with machine-testable accessibility criteria, specifically targeting Section 508 and WCAG 2.1 success criteria. This includes:

  • Structural analysis of Google Docs heading hierarchies and nesting.
  • Detection of missing accessibility metadata, including document titles and primary language declarations.
  • Mapping of identified document issues to specific PDF/UA (ISO 14289-1) and Matterhorn Protocol failure conditions.
  • Generation of remediation suggestions based on identified structural inconsistencies.
  • Verification of technical alt-text presence for non-decorative media elements.
  • Serialization of reading order for conversion to tagged PDF output.

2. What Inkable Docs assists but does not decide

Certain accessibility requirements are contextual and require human expertise. For these tasks, Inkable Docs provides analysis and generates suggestions that the document author must manually evaluate, accept, or reject:

  • Alt Text Quality: While the tool analyzes image content and provides suggestions, a human must confirm the text accurately conveys the specific intent and educational context of the image.
  • Decorative vs. Meaningful: The classification of an image as purely aesthetic (decorative) or informational requires a human decision based on the document purpose.
  • Document Purpose: The tool cannot reliably infer the pedagogical or institutional intent of a document; this must be managed by the author.
  • Semantic Nuance: Final decisions on whether a specific content block should be a heading, a list, or a table remain with the user.

3. What Inkable Docs does not do

To ensure institutional safety, the following boundaries are explicitly defined:

  • Inkable Docs does not certify compliance with any legal or technical standard.
  • Inkable Docs does not replace the need for comprehensive accessibility audits by qualified professionals.
  • Inkable Docs does not automatically remediate semantic intent without human confirmation.
  • Inkable Docs does not override institutional policies, procurement requirements, or local accessibility guidelines.
  • Inkable Docs does not evaluate the accessibility of content hosted at external URLs linked within the document.

4. Human responsibility boundary

Inkable Docs provides analysis and guidance. Final responsibility for the accessibility, accuracy, and legal compliance of any document remains with the document author or the using institution.

5. How institutions typically use the tool

The output from Inkable Docs is integrated into existing institutional workflows as a technical input:

  • Faculty Drafts: Used by instructors during content creation to flag structural issues before publication.
  • Accessibility Team Reviews: Used as a baseline technical report for professional manual audits.
  • Procurement Evaluation: Used by IT and legal evaluators as evidence of assisted-compliance workflows for digital materials.

Interpretation Note

Accessibility standards require human interpretation. Outputs from Inkable Docs are inputs to institutional decision-making, not determinations.