Three capabilities, generated from a real automated audit — not a hand-filled template.
1. EN 301 549 conformance report, chapter-by-chapter
A full Accessibility Conformance Report against every chapter of EN 301 549 that states requirements — Chapter 4 (Functional Performance), Chapter 5 (Generic), Chapter 6 (Two-way voice communication), Chapter 7 (Video capabilities), Chapter 8 (Hardware), Chapter 9 (Web), Chapter 10 (Non-web documents), Chapter 11 (Software), Chapter 12 (Documentation & support services) and Chapter 13 (Relay & emergency service access) — exported as HTML and XLSX, filtered to the surface you audited. Every normative clause of the revision is there: what the standard states as a requirement or a recommendation. What is not there is the conformance-claim machinery and the Electronic Programme Guide clauses. 137 of its 273 v3.2.1 clauses carry a WCAG success-criterion link and are determined automatically (157 of 316 under the v4.1.0 catalog); the rest have no WCAG equivalent and are surfaced as “manual review required” rather than silently dropped.
The EN 301 549 VPAT variant emits an EAA positioning block stating the legal basis (Directive (EU) 2019/882), the harmonized standard at the selected revision, and the presumption of conformity note: EN 301 549 v3.2.1 is cited in the Official Journal under the Web Accessibility Directive, where meeting its applicable clauses confers a presumption of conformity. Under the EAA no revision is cited yet, so the note states today's position plainly — an EN 301 549 report is the strongest evidence available, not yet an EAA presumption.
First-class conformance targets (plus a generic WCAG default), with a version-aware legal basis: EN 301 549 v3.2.1 ↔ WCAG 2.1 AA and v4.1.0 ↔ WCAG 2.2 AA. v3.2.1 is the default and the revision currently cited in the Official Journal; v4.1.0 (2026-06) is the ETSI/CEN/CENELEC final draft — a Harmonised European Standard carrying Annex ZB for the EAA, not yet adopted by the vote and not cited in the Official Journal, with final v4.1.1 expected from that ballot. You can report against it today, and every artefact says so on its face.
EAA
EN 301 549
US Section 508
ADA
AODA
UK Equality Act
Australian DDA
CVAA
Note: selecting UK / Australia / CVAA drives the report ceiling, but those are not EU jurisdictions — the EAA is an EU instrument and does not extend to them.
4. Accessibility statements for all 27 EU member states
The EAA is one directive and twenty-seven transpositions. A statement generated under the EAA can carry a national section for the member state you are established in: the transposing act under its own name, the authority a complaint escalates to, that state's own extra statement duties where a primary source sets them out, the penalty schedule, and the sources for all of it. Every entry carries a review date and a provenance flag. Every national section carries a notice saying it is a drafting aid and not legal advice — there is no flag to suppress it. The section is written in all 19 languages the generator produces, not only English.
AT
BE
BG
CY
CZ
DE
DK
EE
ES
FI
FR
GR
HR
HU
IE
IT
LT
LU
LV
MT
NL
PL
PT
RO
SE
SI
SK
Note: 11 of the 27 member states have no official EU language the generator renders yet. Where that is the case the statement says so and names the language the document should be published in, rather than presenting an English version as if it discharged the duty.
Open engines (axe, Alfa, QualWeb, Lighthouse) report generic WCAG with no regulatory attribution; commercial platforms name a few regimes via human services, none version-aware. We report three numbers — accessibility score, compliance index, and audit coverage — instead of one masking score, and run self-hosted, so the audit and your content stay in your environment.
All three are first-class, not display-only. Every audit stores them, the API and every export format carry them, they are charted over time, and any of them can fail a CI build — including a floor on one named regime, so an organisation cannot clear an overall compliance index of 80 while its EAA exposure alone sits at 41. The compliance index is a measure of regulatory exposure, not an adjudication of conformity: it is reported in bands from low to severe exposure, and it never says “compliant”, because no automated test can.
How we compare on EAA / EN 301 549 conformance reporting.