If a SaaS buyer asks for a VPAT on X, find out which accessibility standard and procurement requirement they mean, then check whether you have a current report for the product they are evaluating. If you do, offer the report through an appropriate channel. If you do not, say so and ask whether the buyer can review other accessibility evidence—or whether a completed report is required. Do not describe an internal test summary as a VPAT.
Find out which report the buyer needs
A VPAT is a template, not a certificate. ITI calls a VPAT completed with documented testing results for a specific product an Accessibility Conformance Report, or ACR. ITI offers editions covering Revised Section 508, EN 301 549, WCAG, and an international edition incorporating all three. That is why “Do you have a VPAT?” is not yet enough to identify the document this buyer needs.
Read the post and any stated purchasing requirements. Ask: “Does your team require a completed ACR? If so, which standard or edition does your review call for?” Also establish which SaaS product or version they intend to evaluate. A buyer gathering accessibility information may be able to consider another document; a buyer following a specified procurement requirement may not. Their answer determines what you should offer, not what you hope they will accept.
For a U.S. federal purchase, the distinction is especially consequential: Section508.gov says agencies ask vendors for an ACR to evaluate accessibility, and a special-use exception is for the government—not the vendor—to claim. Do not suggest that an informal summary automatically satisfies a federal ACR request. If the buyer cites a solicitation, ask for its directions rather than assuming that any completed report will meet them; ITI notes that solicitations can impose additional review requirements.
Check what your product evidence actually covers
Before offering a document, ask the person responsible for accessibility documentation which product and version it covers, when it was prepared, what standards and features were evaluated, what the findings say, and whether it is approved for sharing. A report for an older release needs another look if relevant functionality has changed: Section508.gov says product changes may require an updated ACR to address changes in accessibility.
For an ACR addressing Section 508, Section508.gov says the product owner or developer must first test against the applicable technical standards. Its guidance identifies the product, report date and evaluation methods among the report details, and uses criterion-level findings such as “Supports,” “Partially Supports,” “Does Not Support,” and “Not Applicable.” A blank template, a general accessibility statement, or an untested claim of WCAG compliance is not a completed ACR with documented results. A completed report can also disclose gaps; it is not a pass/fail certificate.
If a report exists, check that its edition covers the buyer’s requested standard and that you can share it. Do not call it “VPAT-certified”: ITI says there is no VPAT certification. If only a test summary exists, inspect its scope and findings before describing it. It may help a buyer understand what was tested, but it does not become an ACR because you attach it to a reply.
When you have no completed ACR, offer only what you have
Consider a fictional case: an X buyer posts, “Can you send your VPAT before we evaluate your SaaS?” The seller has no completed ACR. They do have an internal accessibility test summary for the product being discussed, and the document owner has approved that summary for sharing with prospective buyers. The post does not name a standard or say whether an ACR is mandatory. The supported decision is to disclose that no ACR is available, identify the summary as a summary, and ask what the buyer’s review requires.
A public reply could be: “I’m with [company]. We don’t have a completed accessibility conformance report for this product to share. We do have an accessibility test summary we can provide for review. Does your team require an ACR for a particular standard, or can it consider the summary? Happy to arrange sharing through a suitable channel.” Keep any nonpublic findings in the approved document and channel, not in a public thread.
If the buyer confirms that an ACR is mandatory, acknowledge the limit: “Understood. We can’t provide the required ACR at present.” Do not imply that the summary meets that requirement. If the buyer can review alternative evidence, ask which standard and product areas matter to their reviewers, then provide the approved summary with its actual scope and findings. If you have neither a report nor shareable test evidence, say that you cannot provide verified accessibility documentation yet rather than inventing an assessment or a delivery date.
Review the suggested X reply against the documents
ReachFast says it finds relevant public X requests and prepares replies that open typed in the X thread; the seller decides whether to send. If a VPAT question reaches you that way, compare the draft with the live request and the evidence your team approved. Remove any unsupported standard, conformance level, certification claim or promise to provide a report. The draft can help you start a conversation; it cannot test your SaaS or determine what its buyers will accept.
If the request is about security evidence instead, see how to answer a SaaS buyer asking for SOC 2 on X. For this accessibility request, the deciding detail is whether your evaluated product and documented findings match the standard the buyer needs.
