Introduction

In the previous post, we looked at why WCAG 3.0 reorganized “Success Criteria” into “Outcomes.”

This post focuses on changes to the conformance model. WCAG 3 aims for a different approach than WCAG 2.x, but it is still at the Working Draft (2026-03-03) stage and the model is not finalized. In particular, the thresholds for conformance levels are still marked “to be determined” in the draft text.

Basis document: This post is based on the W3C Working Draft of March 3, 2026. One thing worth noting: within the draft itself, the Conformance chapter is marked Exploratory, the least mature maturity stage (the Guidelines chapter is marked Developing). That means this is the part of the post most likely to shift again.

Thumbnail image representing the WCAG 3 conformance model, showing a shift from a pass/fail checklist to a multi-layered requirements structure
Thumbnail image representing the WCAG 3 conformance model, showing a shift from a pass/fail checklist to a multi-layered requirements structure
Image: Generated with Nanobanana AI
Notes and documents on a work table, symbolizing that WCAG 3.0 is still a draft
Notes and documents on a work table, symbolizing that WCAG 3.0 is still a draft
Photo: Unsplash by Anna Evans

WCAG 2.2 Conformance Model: All or Nothing

A, AA, AAA Levels

WCAG 2.2 evaluates each Success Criterion as Pass or Fail. Conformance levels are defined as:

  • Level A: Minimum level. All Level A Success Criteria (30 items) must be met. Without this level, some users cannot access the content at all.
  • Level AA: Recommended level. All Level A + Level AA Success Criteria (50 total) must be met. This is the level required by most laws and policies.
  • Level AAA: Highest level. All Success Criteria (86 total) must be met. Not recommended as a site-wide goal because it is difficult to apply to all types of content.

All-or-Nothing Model

WCAG 2.2 requires all Success Criteria at a level to pass in order to claim that level of conformance. If any criterion fails, you cannot claim that level.

WCAG 2.2 also defines conformance at the full-page level. You cannot claim conformance for only part of a page (for example, a single section).

On/off toggle switch representing WCAG 2.2's all-or-nothing model
On/off toggle switch representing WCAG 2.2's all-or-nothing model
Photo: Unsplash by John M. Smit

WCAG 2.2 Conformance claim summary

Conformance claims are optional, but if you choose to make one, WCAG 2.2 expects the following information:

  • claimed conformance level (A/AA/AAA)
  • standard name and version
  • scope of the claim (which pages/URLs are included)
  • technologies relied on (for example, HTML, CSS, JavaScript)

WCAG 3.0 Conformance Model: Key Directions in the Draft

The core message of the WCAG 3.0 Editor’s Draft process has been “testing multiple approaches before locking in a model.” Here are the directions the current draft makes explicit.

1) Core / Supplemental / Assertions

  • Core Requirements: must be met at the baseline conformance level (92 items)
  • Supplemental Requirements: additional requirements for higher levels (61 items)
  • Assertions: procedural guarantees an organization documents and claims itself (28 items)
  • Best practices: a new category in the March draft. Not meeting these has no effect on conformance

The name changed. Foundational, used through the September 2025 draft, was replaced by Core in the March draft (Foundational no longer appears anywhere in the document). Be careful when consulting older material.

The Explainer document describes Core Requirements as covering a scope that is “similar to, but not identical to,” WCAG 2.2 Level AA.

Diagram showing WCAG 3's requirement structure in three columns - the 92 Core requirements must all be met at the minimum level and were formerly named Foundational; the 61 Supplemental requirements are required in increasing proportion at higher levels, tripled from 20 in the September draft; the 28 Assertions are procedures an organization documents and claims, and cannot substitute for Core. A newly added Best practices category sits alongside these and has no effect on conformance if unmet. Levels are split not by points but by thresholds of proportion met, and those thresholds are still marked to be determined
Diagram showing WCAG 3's requirement structure in three columns - the 92 Core requirements must all be met at the minimum level and were formerly named Foundational; the 61 Supplemental requirements are required in increasing proportion at higher levels, tripled from 20 in the September draft; the 28 Assertions are procedures an organization documents and claims, and cannot substitute for Core. A newly added Best practices category sits alongside these and has no effect on conformance if unmet. Levels are split not by points but by thresholds of proportion met, and those thresholds are still marked to be determined
Image: Generated with Nanobanana AI

2) Bronze / Silver / Gold — Back, But Not a Points System

This is the biggest change in this post. The Bronze/Silver/Gold levels, present in the first 2021 draft and then dropped, are back in the March draft.

  • Bronze (minimum level): every view/process in scope meets all Core Requirements, plus some portion of Supplemental and Assertions
  • Silver: a larger portion of Supplemental/Assertions than Bronze
  • Gold: a larger portion than Silver

Two things here are easy to misread, though.

First, this is not a points-based system. The old Silver-era machinery — 0-4 point scoring, weighted averages, critical errors zeroing out a score — is not in the March draft text. It’s a threshold-based approach that looks at how much of a requirement set has been met. You’ll see claims floating around that “WCAG 3 introduces a flexible scoring system,” but that doesn’t match the current draft.

Second, that “some portion” hasn’t been pinned down as a number yet. The draft literally says “some portion (to be determined).”

2-1) Levels are judged per functional performance statement

This is a less-known but important change. Rather than assigning one level to a site as a whole, levels are judged per functional performance statement. That means conformance can differ across different user needs — visual, auditory, cognitive, and so on — so a state like “Silver overall, but Bronze for a specific need” is possible.

3) Conformance scope: Views and Processes

WCAG 3.0 defines conformance scope by views and processes.

  • Conformance is determined for one or more complete views or processes
  • All unique steps in a process must be included
  • Conformance claims are optional, and must follow the specified format when provided

This is one of the biggest differences from WCAG 2.2’s page-based scope.

Comparison diagram of WCAG 2.2 page-based scope and WCAG 3.0 views/processes scope
Comparison diagram of WCAG 2.2 page-based scope and WCAG 3.0 views/processes scope
Image: Generated with Nanobanana AI

4) Conformance claims are optional

The WCAG 3.0 Draft explicitly states that a conformance claim is not required. If you do provide one, it must include required details such as scope (views/processes), technologies, and evaluation date.

5) Documenting Assertions

Assertions are optional, but the Draft expects them to be documented with evidence (for example, scope, rationale, and date). They are not meant to be informal statements.

WCAG 2.2 AA vs WCAG 3 Core

Similarities and differences

The Explainer describes Core as “similar to, but not identical to,” WCAG 2.2 AA. The structure and evaluation unit differ.

데이터 표
ItemWCAG 2.2 AAWCAG 3 Core (2026-03 draft)
Evaluation basisSuccess Criteria (SC)Core Requirements (92 items)
Scope unitFull pagesViews / processes
Conformance ruleAll SC in the level must passAll Core requirements + some portion of Supplemental/Assertions
LevelsA / AA / AAABronze / Silver / Gold (thresholds undefined)
Judged perWhole site/pageFunctional performance statement
StabilityRecommendationWorking Draft, Conformance chapter Exploratory

Key takeaways

  • WCAG 2.2 is page-based and pass/fail
  • The WCAG 3 draft proposes view/process scope and Core-based evaluation

So WCAG 2.2 AA compliance is a strong starting point, but re-evaluation is required because the scope and structure are different.

Practical preparation

A person climbing stairs, representing continuous improvement in WCAG 3.0
A person climbing stairs, representing continuous improvement in WCAG 3.0
Photo: Unsplash by Lindsay Henwood

1) Maintain WCAG 2.2 compliance

Most regulations still reference WCAG 2.2. Keep that baseline in place.

2) Pilot WCAG 3.0 Draft checks

  • Review Core requirements against your current backlog
  • Identify outcomes not covered by existing WCAG 2.2 audits

3) Practice scope definition

WCAG 3.0 requires scope definition using views and processes. Map your critical user journeys and ensure all unique steps are included.

4) Build internal evaluation habits

Even before the thresholds are finalized, track Core requirement compliance and keep a log of gaps — that groundwork will carry over directly once the thresholds land.

Quick answers

Is the WCAG 3.0 conformance model finalized?
No. The March draft fixed the level names - Bronze/Silver/Gold - but the portions required for each level are still “to be determined.” On top of that, the Conformance chapter itself is at the Exploratory maturity stage.
If I meet WCAG 2.2 AA, do I meet WCAG 3 Core?
Not entirely. The Explainer says Core is similar to, but not identical to, WCAG 2.2 AA. The draft text is more specific: content that meets WCAG 2.2 A+AA will likely satisfy most of the minimum level, but some additional work will be needed.
What scoring system or levels will WCAG 3.0 use?
Bronze/Silver/Gold. But it isn’t a points system - it’s a threshold-based approach that splits levels by how much of a requirement set has been met, and those portions haven’t been pinned down yet.
How is conformance scope defined?
Conformance is defined for views and processes. A process must include all unique steps, and additional views can be included as needed.
Are conformance claims required?
No. Conformance claims are optional, but if you choose to make one, the draft specifies required information.

One-page summary

  • Core/Supplemental/Assertions structure — all 92 Core requirements must be met; only a portion of the 61 Supplemental and 28 Assertions items are required, depending on level. Foundational was renamed Core in the March draft.
  • Bronze/Silver/Gold are back in the March draft, but it’s not a points system — the old 0-4 point scoring and weighted averages are gone; it’s a threshold-based approach measured against how much of a requirement set is met.
  • Each level’s threshold (“some portion”) is still not a defined number — marked “to be determined.”
  • Levels are judged per functional performance statement, not once for the whole site.
  • Conformance scope is defined by views/processes, not by page.
  • The Conformance chapter is at the Exploratory stage — less mature than the Guidelines chapter (Developing), so this is the part of the draft most likely to still change.
  • Core is “similar to, but not identical to” WCAG 2.2 AA — AA compliance is a good starting point, but re-evaluation is required.

Closing

WCAG 3 is still a draft, but the direction toward a Core/Supplemental/Assertions conformance model is clear. The Bronze/Silver/Gold level names are back too. That said, the threshold for each level is still empty, and the Conformance chapter is one of the least mature parts of the draft.

In practice, the realistic strategy is to maintain WCAG 2.2 compliance while preparing around WCAG 3’s scope definition (views/processes) and Core requirements.

I’ll revise this post again as the draft updates. The next draft is expected in Q4 2026.

References

Note: This post is based on the W3C Working Draft of March 3, 2026. WCAG 3 is still under development, so details may change before a final Recommendation, and the conformance model in particular is at the least mature stage within the draft. Check the original W3C document when you need an authoritative answer.