How Do I Validate a PDF Against PDF/UA?
Use a validator that supports the PDF/UA version you target, then complete the required human checks on the saved file. Record the tool version and evaluation limits.
PDF/UA evaluation includes automated and human checks. Choose a validator supporting the PDF and PDF/UA versions you intend to assess, run it on the actual saved file, then investigate the findings and complete the relevant manual checks.
Establish the evaluation target
PDF/UA-1 and PDF/UA-2 apply to different PDF versions and have different requirements. Confirm tool support and select the intended profile. A PDF/UA identifier in metadata is a claim to validate, not proof that the file meets the standard.
The Matterhorn Protocol 1.1 describes PDF/UA-1 failure conditions and identifies checks needing human judgment. Do not treat the protocol as software or assume its complete scope is automated.
Use tools within their documented scope
PAC offers PDF accessibility checks and a structure preview. Use the current PAC documentation for supported versions and installation requirements. A preview helps inspect structure; it does not reproduce every reader and assistive-technology combination.
veraPDF's accessibility documentation describes supported validation profiles and their limits. Record the release and profile rather than relying on a timeless claim of 108 rules.
Adobe Acrobat provides accessibility checking and editing tools. Check its current interface and manual-review items. A clean automated report is not complete PDF/UA or WCAG conformance evidence.
Inspect what software cannot establish
Check reading order, heading roles, table relationships, meaningful figure alternatives, text accuracy and content preservation. Test the intended navigation and tasks with appropriate assistive technologies. Correct findings, save the file and evaluate those exact bytes again.
Keep the result traceable
Record file identity, tool/version/profile, findings, manual decisions and unresolved work. A validator pass establishes only what that profile checked; PDF/UA and WCAG must not be treated as universally equivalent.
Aelira Core is beta software. Supported workflows can apply eligible partial fixes and record outcomes, but some inputs need manual work or cannot produce a downloadable remediated file. Review the actual saved output, unresolved findings and content preservation before publication. Automated scores describe implemented checks rather than accessibility conformance. Inspect the public source and release documentation and evaluate a representative authorized sample before planning a rollout.
Aelira Team
•Accessibility EngineersThe Aelira team is building beta accessibility tools for higher education. Institutions can evaluate selected checks and partial fixes on their own files, with human review required before publication.
Related Articles
What Procurement Should Demand in an Accessibility AI Contract: A Due-Diligence Checklist
Eleven proposed due-diligence terms for AI-assisted accessibility procurement. Adapt acceptance, evidence, data-flow and exit commitments to institutional needs.
FERPA, Cloud Inference, and the Data-Sovereignty Question Procurement Should Be Asking
Map document and inference data flows, review FERPA conditions and contract terms, and verify what a self-hosted deployment actually sends outside the institution.
What Accessibility Scores Establish — and Why Review Records Matter
Use scanner scores within their measured scope, and retain review records tied to exact files. Neither a score nor an audit trail guarantees conformance or an investigation outcome.