# The conformance status – and when you may deviate

How the service suggests fully, partially or not conformant, when you may choose a different status and why that requires a justification.

**In short**

- The service suggests a status from findings and manual checks – “fully conformant”, “partially conformant” or “non-conformant”.
- You may deviate, but you have to justify it; suggestion, choice and justification are recorded.
- “fully conformant” cannot be chosen while findings are open.

Every statement says how far the website meets the requirements. This conformance status is the sentence readers, authorities and courts look at first.

## The suggestion

On the publishing page, under “Release”, the page shows “Assessed status:” with a short reason. It follows from the open findings, the findings assessed as limitations and the answers to the manual checks.

## Deviating

Under “Differing conformance claim” you can choose a different “Status”. A “Reason” is then required. The suggestion, your choice and the justification are recorded together with the version – so it is clear who is responsible for which assessment. The summary before approval points this out.

A reason to deviate can be that you know of defects the automated scan cannot find – then a stricter status is right.

## What is not possible

“fully conformant” cannot be chosen while findings are open. A tool that makes a false claim convenient would be a bigger risk for you than one that prevents it. If a finding should no longer count because it is not a defect, assess it accordingly: [Reviewing findings](https://barrierepruefung.de/en/help/reviewing-findings).

## Why “partially” is no stain

Most websites are partially conformant. A statement that openly names what is not yet accessible and how people can still reach their goal serves its purpose – one that claims “fully” and isn’t, does not.

---

Last checked against the product: 2026-09-13 · https://barrierepruefung.de/en/help/conformance-status