Accessibility that answers, not just complies

Public guidance is written to be correct, not to be read. It is organized around which body is responsible for what, so a single event in someone's life breaks apart into separate pages that are each accurate on their own and none of which is addressed to the person who needs them.

That turned every citizen into their own case manager at the worst possible moment. Some gave up and picked up the phone. Others assumed a step did not apply to them and found out much later that it did. Meeting the letter of an accessibility standard had done nothing for them, because the barrier was never the markup — it was that nobody could tell which parts were theirs.

Someone now starts from what is actually happening to them, answers a few ordinary questions, and sees only the steps that fit their situation, in plain language rather than policy language. Every answer stays tied to the official guidance it came from, and anything uncertain goes to a member of staff, so nobody is left holding a confident answer that turns out to be wrong.

As a pilot its real finding was about the bar itself: a generative answer can be held to the same standard of correctness as a published page, provided it is never allowed to reach past what the source actually says. That is the version of accessible worth committing to.