Referencing the Draft Community Group Reports 21 August 2024 for ONIX and for EPUB

• All calculation in the techniques documents use the 'Compact explanations' from the principles document. Should the techniques documents reference that there are 'Descriptive explanations' also available? (on this note, there are no unambiguous identifiers for the explanations, and you have to assume that the order presented is the same, and that (as an example) the third one in the list for descriptive is the same as the third one in the list for compact)
• 4.1 Visual adjustments - the wording in item 3 under 4.1.3 Instructions is "Appearance modifiability not known". The wording of the third item in the 4.1.1 of the principles document is "Ability to modify the appearance is not known". Which one is to be used?
• 4.2 Supports nonvisual reading - both techniques documents have three possible results in the calculations at 4.2.3 Instructions, however, the principles document has four possible outcomes. There is no calculation that results in "Not known if readable in read aloud and braille"
• 4.3 Conformance - item 1 under 4.3.3 Instructions results in "This publication exceeds accepted accessibility standards" which is not listed as a statement in the principles document. The same is true for item 4 "Conformance to accepted standards for accessibility of this publication cannot be determined", and item 9 "This publication claims to meet ...", and item 22 "For more information refer to the certifier's report"
• 4.5 Navigation - the statements in the principles document do not match those in the techniques documents
• 4.6 Charts, diagrams, and formulas - the statements in the principles document do not match those in the techniques documents
• 4.7 Hazards - line 4 in 4.7.3 Instruction referenced the descriptive explanation, rather than the compact one others are using.
• 4.8 Accessibility summary - the "No accessibility summary" calculation in the techniques documents is not mentioned in the principles document