Media & Entertainment AI agent · Accessibility
Accessibility Conformance & Certification AI Agent
Keep the conformance evidence behind a whole catalogue — captions, audio description and signing, measured per platform — and assemble the certification a named officer of the programmer signs.
- Typical delivery
- 4–6 weeks
- Deployment
- Your stack
- Officer signs
- Catalogue-wide
- After launch
- Agent Care
What this agent does
Assembles the evidence, not the certification
In
- 01
A title is delivered, and its caption, audio-description and signing tracks are recorded against the catalogue.
- 02
A platform is added, and each build is measured on its own — Ofcom's draft Code proposes no averaging across them.
Reason
- 03
A caption sample is measured against the §79.1(j)(2) standards, which the 2026 deletion rule left untouched.
- 04
A quarter closes, and audio-description hours are counted per §79.3 window rather than annualised and divided.
- 05
An election is evidenced, because quality compliance and §79.1(k) Best Practices rest on different records.
Decide
- 06
An EU access layer is documented under the European Accessibility Act, which has applied since 28 June 2025.
- 07
A draft is routed to the named officer of the programmer, who elects, signs and makes the certification.
Out
- 08
A snapshot is kept of what the evidence showed on the day, so the figures reproduce when someone asks.
- 09
A write is made only inside the approval boundaries agreed during implementation, never ahead of approval.
Product statement
The agent assembles the evidence; a named officer of the programmer certifies, and a distributor or a regulator relies on what was signed.
Example workflow
One reporting year, catalogue to signature
- 1Catalogue assembledTitle records, access-service tracks, platform manifests and delivery receipts
- 2Evidence gatheredCaption, audio-description and signing coverage per platform, with the monitoring record
- 3Conformance measuredCoverage, measured quality, exemption categories and confidence
- 4Controls appliedStandard checks, per-platform reconciliation, EU access-layer checks and confidence threshold
No human action required
Stages 1 to 4 run unaided, and nothing is certified at any of them — the agent is assembling, and the officer's lane opens at the confidence gate.
Goes to the certifying officer to sign.
Adds an accessibility-lead read first.
Officer certification
The draft is held with its evidence, its unsupported lines and the confidence.
Approve · Amend · Send to accessibility lead
Certified — signed and made available
- 6Conformance systems updatedOnly where write access and approval policy allow it
- 7Outcome evaluatedEvidence gaps, per-platform variance, complaint outcomes and corrections after certification
Amendments
Every amendment the officer makes is counted in the evaluation.
What should not run autonomously
Human approval stays in control
Outside the boundary — human approval required
8 items
- Signing or making the certification.
- Electing quality compliance or Best Practices.
- Asserting a disproportionate burden under the EAA.
- Filing an annual report to a regulator.
Automation boundary
Agent acts unaided
- ✓Maintain the conformance evidence across the catalogue.
- ✓Measure captions against the codified quality standards for the named owner.
- ✓Count hours and coverage per quarter and per platform.
- ✓Mark what the evidence does not support and hold the draft for the officer.
Any write happens inside the boundaries agreed at implementation, never ahead of the signature.
- Warranting conformance to a distributor.
- Deciding that a claimed exemption holds.
- Judging an access feature good enough to count.
- Changes to conformance, evidence or approval rules.
Example output
One conformance line, annotated
Everything the agent assembles is attached to the evidence it was measured from.
Conformance output · single title
Illustrative example- Service
- On-demand catalogue
- Measured line
- Subtitles present on the delivered build, audio description absent
- Platform
- Connected-TV app
- Evidence of record
- Delivery receipt on file
- Confidence
- 92%
- Position
- Not supported for certification
As received
Taken from the catalogue record and the platform manifest — nothing on this side is written by the agent.
Conformance evidence used
- Platform manifest
- Monitoring record
- Vendor delivery receipt
Why this position
The description track is absent on this build, whatever the master carries.
What the score decides
Below the configured threshold the draft picks up an accessibility-lead read before it.
Action
ApproveAmendSend to accessibility leadValue
Where AI adds value
The same four claims, placed at the point in the workflow where each one applies.
Where the value lands
Value 01 – 04
Every title
From the catalogue record
Measure against the standard
Read the delivered tracks, the platform manifests and the monitoring records kept on the §79.1(c)(3) horizon.
The rule is written but not live
The §79.1(m) filing waits on a Federal Register date; the live certification runs to distributors under §79.1(k).
Know today what you cannot defend
No EAA action has reached a media provider yet; the unsupported lines are marked before anyone asks for them.
Build an evidence trail
The title, the standard it was measured against and the officer who certified stay on the record.
Integrations
Typical integrations
Five system groups connect to the same agent. Which of them are in scope is decided in discovery.
Catalogue and metadata
- MAM
- DAM libraries
- Access-service metadata
Delivery and platforms
- CTV apps
- set-top builds
- Partner and device platforms
Access-service vendors
- Captioning
- description
- Signing and QC vendors
Agent
Accessibility conformance
- Reads the catalogue
- Measures conformance
- Holds for certification
Compliance records
- Monitoring and complaint logs
- Regulatory correspondence
Observability & evaluation
- OpenTelemetry
- Langfuse
- Supported monitoring/evaluation sources
Integration availability depends on the client's existing systems and API access.
Agent controls
Six layers between the model and the certification
Six controls, each enclosing the next. What gets past every one is named in the map below this.
L6 · Outermost — last line of defence
Inward → L1 · closest to the model
- L1 – L2
- Test whether a claim may stand
- L3
- Puts the signature in an officer's hands
- L4 – L5
- Keep the title and the standard behind it
- L6
- Steps back to conformance reporting when signals degrade
How Nestack evaluates it
Evaluate the conformance workflow — not only the finished certification.
Coverage runs the whole depth of the workflow, and every layer is cut by slice.
Surface — the record the regulator reads
- E1Final-output evaluationDid each claim in the draft match the evidence held?
- E2Step-level evaluationDid the agent use the right catalogue, platform build and standard?
- E3Tool evaluationDid it read the correct title and the correct platform manifest?
- E4Confidence calibrationDo low-confidence measurements actually attract more amendments?
- E5Slice evaluationHow does performance change across specific catalogue cohorts?
- E6Business outcomeHow many claims needed an amendment or a correction after certification?
Floor — the outcome the programmer answers for
Failure modes
Where each failure originates in the agent
Seven failure modes, placed at the stage each one originates.
Agent lifecycle
Direction of processing →
01 · Retrieval
1 mode
- UQ-03
Catalogue read as ingested
Coverage taken from the master, not the platform build.
Stage gathers
Title records, platform manifests and delivery logs
02 · Reasoning
2 modes
- UQ-04
Election unsupported
Best Practices are certified with no process record.
- UQ-06
Blended platform figure
Per-platform results are averaged into one number.
Stage proposes
Coverage per platform, quality and confidence
03 · Tool / write
2 modes
- UQ-02
Assembly read as certification
A draft stands where a signature should be.
- UQ-05
Wrong clock tracked
An August 2026 display date is read as the filing.
Stage writes
Only where write access and approval policy allow it
04 · Output
1 mode
- UQ-01
Claim without evidence
A certification asserts what the record cannot show.
Stage returns
The certification the officer signs and stands behind
05 · Change / Version
1 mode
- UQ-07
Silent standard drift
A rule change widens what counts as conformant.
Stage tracks
Model, prompt, conformance rules and open proposals
- Sev-1 · a certification goes out unsupported
- Sev-2 · a wrong figure reaches the record
- Sev-3 · source degrades, line routes to review
Affected slices
Catalogue conformance can hide one weak platform
A catalogue-wide conformance figure can look acceptable while a small number of platform cohorts carry most of the shortfall. Nestack reports the unevidenced-claim rate by slice, not only in total.
Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregate
Illustrative example| Slice | Failure rate | Lift | Lift vs. threshold | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Partner-operated device builds | 6.3% | 3.5× | Review | |
| Back catalogue and library titles | 4.2% | 2.3× | Review | |
| Trailers and short-form extras | 2.9% | 1.6× | Watch | |
| Current-season flagship app | 1.6% | 0.9× | Normal |
Bar: unevidenced-claim-rate lift vs. flagship-app baseline · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks the 2.0× review threshold
2 of 4 slices over threshold
Evidence-linked improvement
The loop closes on a conformance case
A cycle is done when the unevidenced claim has become a case the next release must close. That suite is what the next certification made is measured against.
Improvement cycle · five stages
Switchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn
- 01
Detect
Unevidenced-claim rate rises in a platform slice.
- 02
Diagnose
The back half of the catalogue nobody had measured is read until one cause is left.
- 03
Improve
The change is numbered on the way out, with the titles that revealed it.
- 04
Verify
A conformance case that has not cleared keeps the release parked.
- 05
Learn
It joins the suite for good, and the conformance rules are edited to match.
Learn → Detect
The return edge. The next detection runs against a suite one conformance case longer.
Typical build scope
Twelve workstreams across six weeks
The build scope read against the delivery timeline. Week structure follows the six-week plan — discovery, sources, conformance workflow, evaluation, integration, then production validation and handover.
Workstream
Week 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6
- 01Conformance workflow discovery and boundary setting.Week 1
- 02Catalogue and platform source review.Week 1, Week 2
- 03Caption standard, quota and exemption-rule mapping.Week 1, Week 2
- 04Catalogue ingestion and evidence mapping.Week 2
- 05Conformance measurement and binding.Week 2, Week 3
- 06Confidence scoring and gap routing.Week 3
- 07Officer certification workflow.Week 3, Week 4
- 08Catalogue and delivery integration.Week 5
- 09Conformance and evidence cases.Week 4, Week 5
- 10Guardrails and certification controls.Week 4
- 11Catalogue-trail instrumentation.Week 5, Week 6
- 12Deployment, documentation and Agent Care handover.Week 6
12 workstreams · 6 weeks · bar shows the weeks a workstream is active — several run in parallel
Final scope and sequence confirmed in discovery
Engagement tiers
What each tier includes
Rows are the capabilities named in each tier's scope. Higher tiers include everything below them.
| Capability✓ in scope · — not at this tier | PilotOne service, one platform | ProductionProduction catalogue systems | AdvancedMultiple services / markets |
|---|---|---|---|
| Introduced at Pilot | |||
| Measuring to your catalogue and rules | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Officer approval | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Conformance-evidence baseline | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Introduced at Production | |||
| Reporting by service | — | ✓ | ✓ |
| Approval workflow in your systems | — | ✓ | ✓ |
| Approved write-back | — | ✓ | ✓ |
| Catalogue and delivery integration | — | ✓ | ✓ |
| Introduced at Advanced | |||
| Multi-regime conformance rules | — | — | ✓ |
| Multi-stage compliance approvals | — | — | ✓ |
| High catalogue volume | — | — | ✓ |
| Multi-platform conformance controls | — | — | ✓ |
| Build price | From $5,000 | From $8,000 | Custom quote |
- Final build price
- Confirmed after discovery based on integrations, workflow complexity, transaction volume, approval controls and deployment requirements.
- Separate from build
- Build pricing is separate from recurring Agent Care, which covers managed monitoring, evaluations, incidents and verified improvements after launch.
What we need from you
What you bring, and what we build with it
Each input maps to a piece of build scope and a week in the delivery timeline.
You bring
We build with it
01Your catalogue records and platform builds
→Catalogue ingestion and evidence mapping
Week 102Representative delivered titles
→Conformance baseline and standard measurement
Week 203Your access-service policies and vendor terms
→Caption standard, quota and exemption-rule mapping
Week 104Access to relevant APIs, feeds or exports
→Catalogue and delivery assessment, then integration setup
Week 205Certifications you would not want relied on
→Complaint cases and the evaluation suite
Week 406What no certification may claim
→Confidence scoring, gap routing, guardrails and approval controls
Week 307A named officer to make the certification
→Officer certification workflow, then pilot and production validation
Weeks 5–6
Nothing else is required
Deployment, documentation and Agent Care handover are ours.
Delivery timeline
Four phases across six weeks
Bands sit where the reporting year puts them, which is why week 5 carries two phases rather than one.
Phase
W1
W2
W3
W4
W5
W6
- DiscoveryW1
- BuildW2 – W3
- EvaluateW4 – W5
- Pilot & LaunchW5 – W6
Week focus
W1Conformance workflow discovery, rule mapping and the automation boundary
W2Catalogue and delivery integration and the measurement baseline
W3Measurement workflow, confidence logic and approval controls
W4Evaluation suite, standard checks and failure-mode testing
W5Platform integration, pilot titles and targeted corrections
W6One reporting year assembled under the accessibility lead, then handover
- Reading the band
- A bar spans the weeks its work is named in, and no more. The week 5 overlap is real work, not padding.
- At the end of W6
- Once the year validates, monitoring transfers to Agent Care.
- Duration
- Six-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.
Next step · Media & Entertainment AI agent
Build an accessibility conformance agent around the certification you sign.
Show us your catalogue, your platform builds and the officer who signs. What you get is the evidence standing ready on the day someone asks, and a list of what you could not defend today.
- Typical delivery
- 4–6 weeks
- Deployment
- Your catalogue and platforms
- Officer signs
- Catalogue-wide
- After launch
- Agent Care available
Nestack Agents · Accessibility conformance
AGT-ME-20 · Agent Care available after launch