# Generated Accessibility Targets Do Not Transfer Verification Responsibility ## Claim A platform-generated color ramp that aims at accessible contrast does not relieve the extension author from testing the actual combinations users will see. <!-- atomicity: 1 idea ✓ --> ## Scope & conditions - Applies when plugins can choose arbitrary seed colors or compose generated tokens in new contexts. - Platform defaults can reduce risk but cannot guarantee contrast across every consumer and state. - Verification needs named ratios, component states, themes, and an executable checking path. ## Evidence [[3. Resources/Readwise/Articles/Design System Theming in WordPress 7.1]] states that its color algorithm targets accessible contrast but cannot guarantee it, leaving plugin authors responsible for resulting interfaces. ## Links - [[Accessibility Enforced at Authoring Time Beats Post-Hoc Auditing]] — qualifies: authoring defaults help only when their output is still checked. - [[Diagnostic Confidence Cannot Exceed Sensor Honesty]] — parallels: an aim or label cannot support confidence beyond measured output. - [[Structured AI Edits Need Platform-Native Validation]] — applies-in: generated platform state still requires platform-aware validation. - [[3. Resources/Readwise/Full Document Contents/Articles/Introducing Divi AI Agents]] — evidence-for, shipped instance: Divi 5's agent bulk-generates alt text and calls it "improve accessibility settings"; populating every empty `alt` also removes the failure signal a scanner would otherwise surface, so the generated target actively obscures the verification gap rather than merely leaving it open - [[3. Resources/MOCs/Accessibility & Disability Inclusion MOC]] — where generated defaults stop and the author's testing obligation begins - [[Accessibility Prompting Fixes Attributes Not Interaction Patterns]] — a second worked instance: an AI page builder aiming at accessibility still leaves interaction defects for the author to find. - [[3. Resources/MOCs/Product & Startup Instincts MOC]] — applies-in: the MOC lists this note under Synthesis additions (2026-08-11 — generated accessibility). - [[3. Resources/Permanent Notes/An Image Nobody Would Miss Should Be Removed and Any Other Image Isn't Decorative]] — applied in: Adrian Roselli's post gives two yes-or-no tests for an image in narrative content (not icons, not interactive controls): would any reader care if the image were removed, and would the author care if it were replaced with something unwanted.