What Is the Matterhorn Protocol?
The Matterhorn Protocol describes PDF/UA-1 failure conditions, including human checks. Use it with an appropriate validator and manual evaluation of the saved PDF.
The Matterhorn Protocol is a testing model for PDF/UA-1, rather than a software application. It organizes potential failures into checkpoints and identifies conditions whose assessment needs human judgment.
Use the correct target
Read the PDF Association's Matterhorn resources and the protocol version used in the evaluation. Do not describe 31 checkpoints as 31 individual failure conditions or assume a universal split implemented identically by every validator.
PDF/UA-1 and PDF/UA-2 are distinct targets. A PDF/UA-1 protocol or validator profile does not automatically evaluate every requirement of PDF/UA-2. Record the PDF version, target, tool release and evaluation profile.
Automated and human findings
Software can assess supported structural conditions. Meaningful image descriptions, educational context, accurate reading sequence and some table relationships need human evaluation. Tags and alternative-text presence are evidence to inspect, rather than proof that the content is correctly represented.
A metadata identifier is a conformance claim to validate. Adding one cannot make an otherwise incomplete file conformant.
Complete the review
Keep the original and inspect the actual saved output. Combine relevant automated checks with manual review of meaning, reading order, navigation and content preservation. Test important student tasks with the intended reader and assistive technologies. A clean checker report alone does not establish conformance.
Keep original and output identities, findings, manual decisions and remaining work. PDF/UA evidence is useful in document evaluation; it does not settle every applicable WCAG criterion or legal obligation.
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.