Solution Database / Government
Accessibility remediation service
Legacy documents remain difficult to access. Remediation plus reusable templates to prevent repeated defects.
01The offer
For public agency website owners, turn public websites, documents and testing criteria into remediated assets and test record. Address the recurring problem: legacy documents remain difficult to access. The value hypothesis is a more complete, reviewable deliverable with less repeated preparation; the pilot must establish whether that benefit is real.
- For
- Public agency website owners
- Takes in
- Public websites, documents and testing criteria
- Delivers
- Remediated assets and test record
- Message
- Accessibility remediation service for public agency website owners. Remediation plus reusable templates to prevent repeated defects. Demonstrate the claim through an accessible-document improvement demonstration.
- Lead magnet
- An accessible-document improvement demonstration
02How it works
- Scan document structure
- Inspect reading order
- Draft alternatives
- Repair approved templates
- Record manual tests
- Prioritize recurring issues
Workflow
Agree review criteria, ingest a sample, generate candidate findings, inspect supporting evidence, let reviewers confirm or dismiss each item, assign corrections, and recheck the affected material. Start with public websites, documents and testing criteria and finish with remediated assets and test record.
AI and people
Propose possible inconsistencies, omissions and rubric matches. Combine extraction with deterministic checks where rules are explicit. Reviewers make the final judgment. Keep false positives and missed cases visible during evaluation.
Screens
Key screens: Asset inventory, issue queue, remediation review. Open on a review queue ordered by reviewer-selected priorities. Show each finding beside the original evidence and applicable rule. Provide accept, dismiss and needs-information controls with reasons. A separate report view summarizes confirmed findings and unresolved items, not raw AI flags. In this product, the first view is asset inventory, followed by issue queue and remediation review.
Admin
Versioned review criteria, evidence links, reviewer decisions, disagreement handling, correction assignments, recheck status and exportable review history.
03Market gap
Alternatives buyers use today
Manual reviewers, checklists, generic scanning tools and specialist audit services. Differentiate on this specific proposed advantage: remediation plus reusable templates to prevent repeated defects. Test it against the buyer's current method on the same task. Competitor coverage and uniqueness have not been established.
Where this wins
A domain-specific review rubric and rights-cleared examples of confirmed defects, false alarms and reviewer reasoning. For this solution, build around remediation plus reusable templates to prevent repeated defects. This advantage requires execution and accumulated customer trust; the base model alone is not a defensible asset.
04Why now
Government teams are adopting AI for exactly this kind of repeatable work, and the cost of language and vision models has dropped far enough that a narrow, reviewed workflow pays back quickly. Rising compliance and audit expectations make a documented, reviewable process worth more than an ad hoc one. The buyer already feels the problem: legacy documents remain difficult to access.
05Proof & signals
Channels where buyers gather: Accessibility specialists and public web agencies. Metrics that prove it works: Verified defects resolved, recurrence.
Paid pilot
Have a qualified reviewer independently assess the same sample. Compare confirmed findings, false alarms and omissions. Repeat on unseen material before agreeing recurring volume. For this solution, use public websites, documents and testing criteria and evaluate remediated assets and test record. Agree success thresholds with the buyer before starting; collect a baseline for verified defects resolved, recurrence. A positive signal is payment and repeat use with acceptable quality and delivery cost, not a favorable demo reaction alone.
06Execution plan
MVP
Begin with public agency website owners and one recurring use case. Build the first two modules: scan document structure; inspect reading order. Provide operator assistance for the third module: draft alternatives. Deliver remediated assets and test record through a manual review queue. Perform other necessary full-scope functions manually during the pilot. Include all applicable access, accuracy and professional-review controls from the start.
First 30 days
Week 1: interview five prospective buyers in this segment: public agency website owners. Ask to see a recent example of the problem and their current process. Week 2: prepare this demonstration using authorized or synthetic material: an accessible-document improvement demonstration. Week 3: present it through accessibility specialists and public web agencies and seek one narrowly scoped paid pilot. Week 4: review verified defects resolved, recurrence, total delivery effort and a concrete renewal decision before increasing scope.
After the pilot
After paid pilots establish value, automate the remaining modules: repair approved templates; record manual tests; prioritize recurring issues. Add one validated source integration, reusable customer configuration and recurring delivery. Expand to additional teams, document formats or languages only after testing the new scope.
Retention
Offer recurring reviews and rechecks of previously confirmed issues. Expand document or case types after validating the new rubric with qualified reviewers.
Integrations
Official publications, agency document stores and approved service workflows. Source repositories, task trackers and report exports. Keep findings as review proposals until authorized owners accept the resulting actions. These are candidate integration categories, not verified supported connectors.
07Investment and running costs
| Phase | Scope | Time | Budget |
|---|---|---|---|
| MVP | One buyer segment, one recurring use case; first modules: scan document structure; inspect reading order. Manual review in the loop. | 6 days | $11,000 |
| Paid pilot | Accounts, roles, review states, audit trail and the first integration, hardened for two to three paying pilot customers. | 7 days | $14,000 |
| Full product | Remaining modules: repair approved templates; record manual tests; prioritize recurring issues. Self-serve onboarding, billing, monitoring and the wider integration set. | 3 weeks | $19,500 |
| Total | $44,500 | ||
| Running | Hosting | AI usage | Total a month |
|---|---|---|---|
| MVP and paid pilot (about 3 customers) | $50–$100 | $80–$160 | $130–$260 |
| Full product (about 50 customers) | $190–$380 | $880–$1,750 | $1,070–$2,130 |
Revenue model to test
Test USD 500-2,000 for a defined audit sample and report. Offer recurring review priced by reviewed items and specialist hours. Software-only access can follow a reliable reviewed service. All prices require validation.
Cost drivers
Document or media processing, model evaluation, expert review, false-positive handling, rechecks and customer-specific rubric calibration.
Safeguards
Preserve official source versions, accessibility and audit records. Confirm agency-specific procurement, records and data handling requirements during discovery. Validate source access and reviewer availability during the pilot. Maintain customer-level access, data deletion controls and a record of final approvals.
Take it further
Concept proposal expanded from the 315-solution conversation. Demand, pricing, differentiation, build scope and integration feasibility are hypotheses, not verified market findings. Category link is inspiration rather than evidence of business viability.