信函、简报和报告可以以其自身的排版方式显示。自动仅在您上方的设置均未另作要求时保持此效果。
面向评估AI无障碍技术的机构的七项产品化服务，每一项都界限清晰、定价贴合真实采购门槛，并且都设计为能自然衔接下一步。
每一种工具都有各自独立的站点和治理机制；每一种都建立在一手资料之上，明确说明其局限，并且不会做出超出自身评估标准所能支持的任何声明。以下服务均综合运用这三者。
我们发布的手语AI信任框架，已发展成一个独立平台。它通过11项标准和54项指标，评估五个信任领域（语言学、透明度、治理、无障碍性和部署信任），其评级基于证据计算，而非市场宣传的协商结果。
因为你现有的尽职调查无法回答真正重要的问题。
无障碍合规报告只能证明界面能与辅助技术配合运作。它无法说明聋人是否真正理解输出内容，而任何标准采购文件也做不到这一点。
经同行评审的文献表明，这一市场中关于准确率的宣称，往往并未说明测量了什么、参照何种基准、涉及哪些手语使用者、在何种条件下进行测量。SLAT会对证据本身进行评级，若证据缺失，则将其视为一项发现，而绝不会视为通过。
医院接诊、紧急通知、课堂、法庭：一次失败的输出即是一次安全事件，也构成民权风险暴露。自2018年以来，世界聋人联合会（World Federation of the Deaf）与世界手语翻译员协会（WASLI）已发出警告，反对将手语虚拟形象作为合格人工手语翻译员在现场、复杂或高风险信息场合中的替代品。
评估结论基于标准、经聋人审核并有据可查，专为那些必须向董事会、审计人员或法庭为采购决定辩护的人所撰写。
一份覆盖美国51个司法辖区的聋人教育参考资料，按州逐一以一手资料建立：入学与安置情况、财政拨款，以及决定谁为聋童提供服务、谁来付费的机构框架。仅采用有据可查的陈述，每一项数据均附有引用来源，公共记录中的空白也作为发现被记录在案。摘录、多州比较及定制简报均可作为界定范围的服务提供；需另行收费。
因为关于聋人教育的决策，正在缺乏全国性记录支撑的情况下被做出。
联邦特殊教育报告以某些方式汇总听力相关类别，抹去了本应加以区分的重要差异；各州所采用的公开标准参差不齐，甚至根本不公开；而曾经填补这一空白的全国年度调查也已停办。NDEDI正逐一司法辖区地建立这份记录。
聋人教育资金至少通过六个渠道流动：公式化拨款、州立学校拨款、联邦资金、跨机构结算、资本项目及奖学金。在目前已纳入索引的各州中，没有一个公开发布过整合性报告，而学区的拨款公式也很少按残疾类型进行细分，因此一个州实际在一名聋童身上花费了多少，在大多数情况下从未有人真正计算过。
在最先被纳入索引的几个州中：一个州将其聋人学校直接置于教育主管部门之下运营，一个州由独立的、经州长任命的董事会管理，一个州通过单一地方学区运营一所全州性学校，一个州已废除其独立的聋人学校，还有一个州则根本没有校园。任何关于聋人教育的决策，若不先核查各州具体的运作机制，都无法直接照搬套用。
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.
A public record of what public institutions publish about how they govern accessibility, built entity by entity from primary sources: who is accountable, how a person complains or reports a barrier, the standard claimed, effective communication and language access, how technology is bought, and what is said about testing and the plan. Thirty indicators in five domains, six codes, and a Level from 0 to 4 computed by script against a published rubric. Its fourth section, the Procurement Accessibility Record, sets what vendors publish about the platforms those institutions deploy beside what the institutions publish. The Record documents publication; it does not test conformance and it does not state whether any entity complies with any law.
Because obligations are not publication, and nobody was keeping the record.
Every profile opens with the ADA or accessibility coordinator, the complaint route, and the barrier-report route, quoted as published or recorded as not found with the pages checked. A member of the public who cannot find those three things cannot use anything else the institution publishes, so the Record puts them first and measures how findable they are.
The Title II web accessibility rule reaches state entities and large local governments in April 2027 and the rest in April 2028, with the Section 504 rule for HHS recipients on its own calendar. A record of what each institution had published before those dates, re-audited on a published schedule afterwards, is the only way the change will ever be visible.
The Procurement Accessibility Record parses every accessibility conformance report a vendor publishes, criterion by criterion, and places it beside the vendor's marketing claims and the public entities that deploy the product, with flags such as report age, standard drift, and claim divergence shown with their computation. No score, no badge, and no vendor can pay for a row.
Every entity and vendor receives the draft before release with ten business days to point to anything missed, may comment in its own words beside the finding, and may ask for a declined decision to be re-decided by a second person. Nothing is ranked, no payment alters a code, and every relationship with the publisher is disclosed on the profile.
Pricing works two ways here, on purpose. Fixed-scope diagnostics carry set fees, documented and consistent, and priced against public-sector purchasing thresholds; the Trust Snapshot fee is published below, and the full 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 five 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 →SAM registration active, UEI on file, NAICS 541611, Minnesota SWIFT supplier registration, W-9 and HECVAT on request, and a sole source justification package prepared for you.
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.
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.
Start a consultation