How should a brand document accessibility remediation after a demand letter?

For every finding, record the before-and-after evidence, the WCAG criterion it maps to, who fixed it, and when it was retested. A remediation log turns a pile of fixes into a defense file that counsel can actually use.

Start from a frozen finding list

Before changing anything, capture the full list of findings as the plaintiff described them plus anything your own testing found. Screenshot each issue with a timestamp, note the URL, the browser, and the assistive technology used if any. This frozen record is the baseline the rest of the documentation compares against. Without it, you cannot show that a specific issue was fixed, only that the site looks better now.

Give every finding its own entry

One entry per finding, with the same fields each time: the page and element, the WCAG 2.2 success criterion it maps to, the severity, the fix applied, who applied it, the date, and the retest result. Screenshots before and after should show the same viewport so the comparison is honest. If a finding turns out to be a false positive, say so with the reason, because a plaintiff's lawyer will ask why it was not fixed and "we decided it wasn't a problem" needs support.

Keep the code changes attached

Commit messages, pull requests, or theme change records that tie to the finding entries make the log credible. Vague entries like "fixed contrast" do not help anyone. Specific entries do: "header search label added in theme version 4.2.1, commit reference, retested with keyboard and screen reader on September 30." If an outside developer or agency did the work, note their name and keep their invoices or work orders with the file.

Retest and sign off each item

A fix is not done until it is retested by someone other than the person who wrote it, on the live site, not in a preview. Record who retested, what they tested with, and the result. Items that fail retest go back with a note. This loop is the part plaintiffs scrutinize: they know a store can claim fixes were made, so they look for proof that the fixes were verified.

Close with a summary for counsel

When the remediation is done, the log should read as a single narrative: what was alleged, what was confirmed, what was fixed, what was retested, and what remains with a timeline. Give counsel the raw entries too. The summary makes the first conversation about facts instead of fear, and the detail behind it is what makes a negotiation about remediation instead of about damages.