What Procurement Should Demand in an Accessibility AI Contract: A Due-Diligence Checklist

These eleven proposed due-diligence terms are a starting point for an institutional vendor evaluation. Adapt them to the content, deployment, applicable obligations and legal advice. The April 2026 IFR extended Title II web compliance dates; it did not mandate these clauses or prescribe an exclusive AI-and-human workflow. Further reading: DOJ April 2026 Interim Final Rule; reading the IFR; the OCR-pattern article; the 2027/2028 math; the defensibility standard

The sample clauses contain negotiation placeholders and illustrative service periods. They are proposed contractual commitments, not Aelira service promises or requirements established by the IFR. Agree acceptance evidence, exceptions, responsibilities and remedies with the institution and vendor.

1. Human-review accuracy SLA

Requirement. The vendor commits to a measurable accuracy floor on AI-proposed fixes that are accepted by trained human reviewers without modification, evaluated against an institutionally-defined sample of representative content. Scanner-score uplift is not an acceptable substitute metric.

Rationale. A scanner score does not establish accessibility. Reviewer acceptance can be an operational metric with agreed expertise, representative sampling and saved-output checks; acceptance alone is not conformance. Further reading: audit-trail defensibility

Sample clause. "Vendor warrants that AI-proposed fixes will achieve a Human-Reviewer Acceptance Rate of no less than {X}% across a quarterly sample of {N} representative documents drawn from Customer's content corpus, evaluated by Customer-designated trained accessibility reviewers. Failure to achieve this rate over two consecutive quarters constitutes a material breach."

2. Audit-trail export

Requirement. Per-document audit trail exportable in a machine-readable format (JSON or CSV — not PDF), covering at minimum: document identifier, scan timestamp, issues flagged, fix proposed, reviewer name, review timestamp, action taken, fix-verification result.

Rationale. Machine-readable records can support institutional analysis and portability. Define appropriate fields, completeness and formats. A specific investigation may specify its own evidence requests; the IFR sets no universal JSON or CSV requirement. Further reading: audit-trail defensibility

Sample clause. "Vendor shall provide Customer with on-demand export of the per-document audit trail for any document or set of documents in Customer's account, in JSON or CSV format, containing at minimum the eight fields specified in Schedule [A]. Export shall be available within 24 hours of Customer request."

3. Inference-location disclosure

Requirement. Written disclosure of where inference physically executes, what subprocessors are involved, what is logged at the inference endpoint, and whether the institution's executed data-protection agreement covers the full data flow.

Rationale. Map actual inference, storage and logging paths, including external providers. Review their applicable terms and the executed agreement together; deployment labels alone do not establish data flows or legal assurance. Further reading: FERPA, cloud inference, and data sovereignty

Sample clause. "Vendor shall disclose, in Schedule [B], the country and operator of any infrastructure on which inference against Customer content executes; all subprocessors involved in the inference path; the retention period for any logs of submitted content; and confirmation that the data flow is fully covered by the executed Data Protection Agreement between Vendor and Customer."

4. Indemnification for AI-introduced errors

Requirement. Consider negotiated responsibility and remedies for errors introduced during remediation, separately from unresolved pre-existing barriers. Counsel should assess appropriate indemnity, exclusions and limits.

Rationale. Distinguish introduced errors from unresolved barriers. Liability and causation depend on the actual facts and terms; the IFR does not mandate a particular indemnity. Further reading: hallucinated alt text as a Section 504 risk

Sample clause. "Vendor shall indemnify Customer against any third-party claim arising from accessibility defects in Customer content that were introduced by Vendor's AI-generated remediation, separately from and in addition to indemnification for defects pre-existing the engagement."

5. Exit clause with full audit-trail export

Requirement. On contract termination, vendor delivers within a defined window all per-document audit-trail records in a machine-readable format the institution can ingest into a successor system. No data is retained beyond a documented destruction window.

Rationale. Evidence portability can support continuity after a vendor change. Agree what can be exported and the lawful retention, deletion and legal-hold conditions. It does not guarantee an investigation outcome or establish a supplier motive.

Sample clause. "Within 30 days of contract termination for any reason, Vendor shall deliver to Customer the complete per-document audit trail in JSON and CSV formats. Vendor shall destroy all retained copies within 60 days of delivery and provide written attestation of destruction."

6. Model-change notification

Requirement. Vendor notifies Customer with at least 30 days' lead time before substituting the underlying foundation or vision model used in inference. The accuracy SLA in Requirement 1 re-baselines on the new model.

Rationale. A model change can alter performance. Agree material-change notification and representative re-evaluation rather than assuming unchanged results.

Sample clause. "Vendor shall provide Customer with at least 30 days' written notice prior to any substitution of the foundation model, vision model, or other inference component materially affecting accuracy. Following any such substitution, the Human-Reviewer Acceptance Rate target in §1 shall be re-evaluated against a fresh sample for the subsequent quarter."

7. FERPA subprocessor flow-down

Requirement. Where relying on the FERPA school-official exception, confirm applicability, institutional control and required restrictions across the actual parties and data flows. Specify appropriate subprocessor terms.

Rationale. A general compliance label does not establish the required controls. Review the arrangement and any onward disclosure with the institution’s privacy and legal teams. Further reading: FERPA, cloud inference, and data sovereignty

Sample clause. "Vendor shall require, by written contract, that all subprocessors processing Customer content abide by the same restrictions on use, redisclosure, and retention as Vendor under this Agreement, and shall provide Customer with copies of those subprocessor contracts on request."

8. Data-residency commitment

Requirement. Consider a binding data-residency clause specifying authorized processing and storage locations. Confirm which written terms and representations form part of the actual agreement.

Rationale. Determine applicable residency and transfer requirements for the material, institution and jurisdiction. Do not assume FERPA or every state imposes the same location rule.

Sample clause. "Customer content shall be processed and stored exclusively within {jurisdiction(s)}. Any change to this commitment shall require Customer's prior written consent and shall constitute a material amendment."

9. Training-data exclusion

Requirement. Customer content is not used to train or improve Vendor's or any subprocessor's models. The exclusion is contractually binding, not policy-stated.

Rationale. Provider terms vary by service and account configuration. Inspect the actual terms and agree appropriate training, evaluation and retention restrictions.

Sample clause. "Vendor shall not use Customer content, in whole or in part, to train, fine-tune, evaluate, or otherwise improve any machine-learning model — Vendor's own or any subprocessor's — without Customer's prior written consent."

10. Named subprocessors

Requirement. Subprocessors are identified by name in the contract, not authorised generally.

Rationale. A general "subprocessors permitted" clause does not produce a written record of where institutional content goes. The named-subprocessors approach makes the data flow auditable.

Sample clause. "All current subprocessors are listed in Schedule [B]. Vendor shall provide Customer with at least 30 days' written notice and opportunity to object before engaging any new subprocessor."

11. Audit-cooperation in regulatory investigations

Requirement. Vendor cooperates in good faith with any OCR or DOJ investigation involving Customer's accessibility programme, including providing copies of relevant audit-trail records and inference-pipeline documentation on subpoena or formal request.

Rationale. A complaint investigation may require evidence that lives in vendor systems, not Customer systems. Cooperation cannot be assumed; it must be contractually committed.

Sample clause. "In the event of any investigation or inquiry by the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights, the Department of Justice, or any state regulatory body concerning Customer's accessibility programme, Vendor shall provide reasonable cooperation, including production of audit-trail records, inference-pipeline documentation, and relevant subprocessor agreements within 14 days of Customer request."

---

These eleven items are proposed procurement controls. Neither the IFR nor resolution agreements create a universal minimum set of these clauses. Their suitability depends on the institution, material, legal requirements and negotiated service.

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. Verify each proposed commitment against the actual service and written terms. No claim here establishes that Aelira already satisfies every sample clause. Self-hosting does not by itself close provider, privacy or contracting questions. The self-hosted software is free; support, hosting, infrastructure and provider usage depend on the deployment and written terms. Further reading: reach the team

Legal scope

The DOJ Title II rule sets WCAG 2.1 Level AA requirements for covered state and local government web content and mobile apps, subject to the rule's scope and exceptions. The April 2026 IFR extends the dates to April 26, 2027 for public entities with a population of 50,000 or more and April 26, 2028 for smaller public entities and special district governments. Determine the institution's cohort using DOJ's population rules; enrollment and federal funding alone do not determine it. Existing accessibility obligations continue before those dates.