Letters, briefs and reports can be shown with their own typography. Automatic keeps that only while none of your settings above ask otherwise.
Seven productized services for institutions evaluating AI accessibility technology, each tightly scoped, priced to real procurement thresholds, and designed so every engagement creates a natural next step.
Our published trust framework for sign language AI has grown into its own home. It evaluates five trust domains (linguistic, transparency, governance, accessibility, and deployment trust) through 11 criteria and 54 indicators, and its ratings are computed from evidence, not negotiated from marketing.
Because your existing diligence cannot answer the question that matters.
An accessibility conformance report certifies that an interface works with assistive technology. It cannot say whether a Deaf person understands the output, and no standard procurement artifact can.
Peer-reviewed literature documents that accuracy claims in this market frequently omit what was measured, against what reference, with which signers, under what conditions. SLAT grades the evidence and treats its absence as a finding, never a pass.
Hospital intake, emergency notification, classrooms, courtrooms: a failed output is a safety event and a civil rights exposure. Since 2018, the World Federation of the Deaf and WASLI have cautioned against signing avatars as replacements for qualified human interpreters in live, complex, or high-stakes information.
Findings are criterion-based, Deaf-reviewed, and documented, written for the people who must defend the purchase to a board, an auditor, or a court.
A 51-jurisdiction reference on deaf education in the United States, built state by state from primary sources: enrollment and placement, fiscal allocations, and the institutional frameworks that decide who serves a deaf child and who pays. Sourced claims only, every figure carries a citation, and the gaps in the public record are documented as findings. Extracts, multi-state comparisons, and custom briefs are available as scoped engagements; fees apply.
Because decisions about deaf education are being made without a national record to stand on.
Federal special education reporting aggregates hearing-related categories in ways that dissolve the distinctions that matter, states publish to inconsistent standards or not at all, and the national annual survey that once filled the gap has been discontinued. NDEDI builds the record, jurisdiction by jurisdiction.
Deaf education funding moves through at least six channels: formula aid, state school appropriations, federal flows, interagency billing, capital projects, and scholarships. In the states indexed so far, none publishes a consolidated view, and district formulas rarely disaggregate by disability, so what a state actually spends on a deaf child is in most cases never calculated by anyone.
Among the first states indexed: one operates its deaf schools directly inside the education agency, one under an independent governor-appointed board, one runs a statewide school out of a single local district, one abolished its separate deaf school, and one has no campus at all. No decision about deaf education transfers between states without checking the machinery first.
Every figure carries a citation and a retrieval date. Conflicts between sources are recorded, not resolved silently, and nothing is estimated, modeled, or inferred. Where a state publishes nothing, that absence is documented as a finding. Extracts, comparisons, and briefs can be cited and defended when challenged.
Where the market fails to build, we build. Auxentia ships accessibility-first apps for navigation, daily living, workplace accommodations, and play, and the @learn platform that packages scarce assistive-technology instruction as software. Available to individuals on the App Store and to agencies, schools, and employers through enterprise and seat licensing outside it.
Pricing works two ways here, on purpose. Fixed-scope diagnostics carry set fees, documented and consistent, and priced against public-sector purchasing thresholds; our current fee schedule is issued on request. Governance-grade engagements are scoped individually, because the governance surface of an AI system that reads, decides, and acts is not the governance surface of a six-policy review.
The full evaluation across all eight trust domains: structured vendor documentation review, Deaf reviewer evaluation of output samples, deployment-context analysis specific to your setting, and recommended contract terms and acceptance criteria you can put in a solicitation.
A short preliminary read of a product’s public claims and evidence: what the vendor asserts, what supports it, and what to ask before proceeding. Priced below common direct-purchase thresholds so you can buy it on your own authority.
An organizational review rather than a product one: where AI is already in use across your institution, which tools bypassed procurement, and where accommodation and governance risk sits, with a prioritized remediation sequence.
A structured briefing for boards, commissions, cabinets, and legislative bodies: the taxonomy, the current legal obligations, the procurement risks, and the governance actions, delivered as a written document with presentation.
Recurring surveillance of designated vendors and the surrounding environment: claim changes, product updates, litigation, regulatory movement, and community response. Delivered as a monthly written update with an escalation notice when something material occurs.
Direct support through the purchasing process and the governance that follows it: specification language, evaluation criteria, solicitation review, contract terms, acceptance testing, and standing oversight structures for AI systems whose autonomy, data reach, and decision authority demand them.
Workshops, certificate curricula, and licensed toolkits for procurement teams, accessibility offices, and interpreter coordinators, delivered under license with attribution, so your institution can carry the method forward.
Start small. Each engagement qualifies the next, so you escalate only when the evidence warrants it.
We advise buyers. We do not publish evaluative findings about any organization that has paid us within the preceding twenty-four months, and vendor engagements are private, unrated, and contractually barred from marketing use. All published work discloses funding sources.
How we govern ourselves →Governance, policy, and responsible-AI advisory for organizations adopting or overseeing AI, grounded in Deaf-led expertise.
Start a secure, passwordless consultation from your browser. Message our team directly; every reply is written by a person, supported by AI behind the scenes. Screen-reader friendly, keyboard-operable, with an option to listen.
We help you get the governance right before it ships.
Request a consultation