Governance
Defines content ownership, review criteria, source freshness, deprecation, normative tagging, and versioning for all A11YSmith knowledge content.
Decision Authority
| Authority Level | Who | Scope |
|---|---|---|
| Tier 1 (TAS normative) | Target Accessibility team | Final authority for all TAS pattern and practice conflicts |
| Tier 2 (implementation) | Product and design-system teams | Can supply implementation detail but cannot override TAS |
| Tier 3 (external fallback) | A11YSmith maintainers | WCAG fills gaps — does not outrank TAS for Target-facing decisions |
When sources disagree: escalate to the designated Digital Accessibility team reviewer. Do not silently pick a side. The designated reviewer is the person on the Target Digital Accessibility team who has been assigned normative review authority for A11YSmith content. If no individual has been designated, escalate to the Digital Accessibility team lead.
Content Ownership
| Content Type | Owner | Review Cadence |
|---|---|---|
| TAS catalog entries | Target Accessibility team | On TAS source update |
| Knowledge modules | Domain specialist + verifier | Quarterly |
| Agent templates | Template author + reviewer | On enrichment or TAS update |
| Crosswalk mappings | A11YSmith maintainers | On catalog or rule changes |
| Scan config profiles | A11YSmith maintainers | On rule set changes |
| Hook engine logic | A11YSmith maintainers | On enforcement behavior changes |
Review Requirements
Normative Content (Tier 1)
Changes to TAS-sourced normative content require:
- First 10 templates: One reviewer with TAS familiarity
- After 10 templates: Two reviewers for Tier 1 normative changes
- Reviewer must verify the change against the approved TAS source document
- Reviewer must confirm
sourceTier,normativeStrength, and content tags are correct
Implementation Content (Tiers 2-4)
Changes to implementation guidance, WCAG fallback, and advisory content require:
- One reviewer
- Reviewer must confirm content tag accuracy
- Reviewer must verify the content is not redundant with existing TAS section
Structural Changes
Changes to interfaces, schemas, or contracts require:
- One reviewer
- Typecheck must pass
- All existing tests must pass
Source Freshness
Every knowledge module and TAS catalog entry carries governance metadata:
| Field | Purpose | Required |
|---|---|---|
owner | Who owns this content | Yes |
lastVerified | When it was last checked against source | Yes |
sourceDocument | Which approved source it traces to | Yes |
sourceTitle | Human-readable source name | Yes |
sourceVersion | Document version if available | No |
verifiedBy | Who verified it | Yes |
verificationDate | When verification happened | Yes |
Staleness threshold: Content not verified within 6 months should be flagged for review. Content not verified within 12 months should be flagged as potentially stale.
Normative Tagging
All knowledge content must carry explicit normative strength:
| Strength | Meaning | Usage |
|---|---|---|
requirement | Must be followed; TAS or WCAG normative | TAS patterns, WCAG SC requirements |
recommendation | Should be followed; best practice | TAS practices, platform guidance |
example | Illustrative; not normative | Code samples, before/after comparisons |
Content tagged as requirement must trace to an approved
normative source (Tier 1 or Tier 4).
Deprecation
When content becomes outdated:
- Mark the content as deprecated with a date and reason
- Add a pointer to the replacement content
- Remove deprecated content after one release cycle
- Update any knowledge modules, templates, or rules that reference it
Versioning
- TAS catalog version tracks the approved source document versions
- Knowledge module governance metadata includes
sourceVersionwhen available - Template changes are tracked via git history
- Breaking changes to interfaces require a version bump in the package
Content Rejection Criteria
During authoring and review, reject content that:
- Is too generic to be actionable
- Is redundant with an existing TAS section
- Has no credible normative or experience-based source
- Is overly tool-specific (tied to one testing tool version)
- Is likely to become stale within 6 months
- Is not useful to at least one Target audience (developers, consultants, designers)