Yes, accessibility platforms can map issues to WCAG 2.2 AA success criteria, and most professional-grade software does this by default. When an issue is logged, the platform tags it with the corresponding success criterion (such as 1.3.1 Info and Relationships or 2.4.7 Focus Visible), the conformance level, and supporting metadata. This lets teams sort, filter, and report on issues by criterion, which is what auditors, procurement reviewers, and legal teams expect to see.
| Capability | What It Means |
|---|---|
| Criterion tagging | Each issue is linked to a specific WCAG 2.2 AA success criterion at the time of logging. |
| Source attribution | Mapping comes from manual evaluations (high accuracy) or scans (limited to roughly 25% of issues). |
| Filtering and reporting | Teams can filter the issue log by criterion, level, page, severity, or status. |
| VPAT and ACR support | Mapped issue data feeds directly into Accessibility Conformance Report generation. |
How Mapping Works Inside an Accessibility Platform
When an evaluator or scan logs an issue, the platform records the WCAG version (2.1 or 2.2), the conformance level (A, AA, or AAA), and the specific success criterion. The criterion field is structured data, not free text, which is what makes filtering and reporting possible.
For audit-based platforms, the evaluator selects the criterion as part of the issue entry. For scan-based platforms, the scanning engine assigns the criterion automatically based on the rule that fired. Both approaches produce a tagged issue, but the accuracy and coverage are different.
Manual Evaluations vs. Scans for Criterion Mapping
A scan can map issues to WCAG 2.2 AA, but only for the criteria that automated checks can evaluate. That is the well-known 25% ceiling: scans flag approximately 25% of accessibility issues with high accuracy, and the rest require human evaluation.
A manual evaluation covers the full set of WCAG 2.2 AA success criteria. An evaluator using screen reader testing, keyboard testing, code inspection, and visual review identifies issues across criteria that scans cannot reach, such as 1.3.1 Info and Relationships, 2.4.6 Headings and Labels, 3.3.2 Labels or Instructions, and the new 2.2 criteria like 2.4.11 Focus Not Obscured (Minimum) and 2.5.7 Dragging Movements.
What Mapped Issue Data Lets Teams Do
Once issues are tagged with criteria, the platform turns the issue log into a working dataset. Teams can answer questions that matter for remediation planning and reporting.
- Filter by criterion to see every open issue under 1.4.3, 2.4.7, or any other criterion.
- Group by conformance level to separate Level A from Level AA work.
- Track progress per criterion as issues move from open to fixed to validated.
- Generate ACR data by rolling up criterion status into Supports, Partially Supports, or Does Not Support.
- Prioritize by user impact and risk across criteria that affect the most users or carry the highest legal exposure.
WCAG 2.2 AA Specifics That Platforms Should Cover
WCAG 2.2 AA introduced new success criteria that older platforms may not include in their tagging schema. Software that genuinely supports 2.2 AA includes the 2.2 criteria as selectable options in the issue form, in filters, and in the ACR generator. If a platform only offers 2.1 AA tagging, it cannot accurately map issues against the current standard.
Look for criterion lists that show the full 2.2 AA set, including 2.4.11 Focus Not Obscured (Minimum), 2.5.7 Dragging Movements, 2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum), 3.2.6 Consistent Help, 3.3.7 Redundant Entry, and 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication (Minimum).
From Mapped Issues to Conformance Reporting
The point of criterion-level mapping is downstream reporting. When every issue carries a criterion tag, the platform can roll the data up into an Accessibility Conformance Report (ACR) without manual reentry. Procurement reviewers reading a VPAT want to see a per-criterion conformance status backed by evidence, and that evidence comes from the mapped issue log.
Software that maps issues well makes the path from evaluation to remediation to ACR a connected workflow rather than three disconnected documents.
Criterion mapping is a baseline expectation for any accessibility compliance management software, but the quality of that mapping depends on whether the underlying data comes from a full manual evaluation or a scan limited to 25% coverage.