[accesswatch]

Completes the last four Open Source Accessibility Framework actions on tracking issue 55.

• Dependencies and upstream blockers (workflow 10): Screen Reader Anounce Authorize VS Code Button As Unavailable #70 is reported to GitHub as community discussion 211602, and [A11Y] Mac reads Selection replaced when typing in an editor #175 to VS Code as microsoft/vscode#345026. Both are linked in ACCESSIBILITY.md and commented on the issues.
• Screen reader spot check (testing 3): the accessibility owner's own run of core tasks 1 to 4 is recorded, with the environment his test machine has: Windows 11 Pro, JAWS 2026 (2026.2608.25.400) and NVDA 2026.2, Chrome 156 and Edge 156. No per-task findings were written down.
• Manual checks (testing 4): an agent's manual visual run on the live site, accepted by the accessibility owner the way docs(a11y): count the accepted keyboard run #276 accepted the keyboard run: 200% zoom, reflow at 320 CSS pixels, contrast in light and dark mode, titles, headings, labels, plain language and text alternatives. New barriers: Chapter 05 uses abbreviations without spelling them out on first use #279 (abbreviations in Chapter 05) and Breadcrumb is cut off at narrow widths and high zoom #280 (breadcrumb cut off at narrow widths).
• Recognizing contributions (community 4): a "Contributions so far" list credits past accessibility contributions by public GitHub handle and the work only. These predate the consent workflow from feat: enforce the accessibility report and credit rules #277, so by the owner's decision it does not apply to them.

Supported environments and Known limitations now say what has and has not been run. The framework count is 24 of 24.

Checks: npm run build:html (201 of 201 files) and npm run check:accessibility (no new findings).

Generated with Claude Code

[github-actions]

Peer Review Assigned

Hi @accesswatch! Your PR has been automatically paired with @taylorarndt for peer review.

For @taylorarndt:

This is a great opportunity to practice code review skills! Here's what to look for:

Content Quality:

• Does the change accomplish what the issue describes?
• Is the writing clear and helpful?
• Are there any typos or grammar issues?

Accessibility:

• Proper heading hierarchy (H1 → H2 → H3, no skips)?
• Descriptive link text (not "click here")?
• Alt text on images?
• [TODO] markers removed?

Documentation:

• Code blocks are properly formatted?
• Tables have headers?
• References/links work correctly?

Review Guidelines:

• Be kind and constructive
• Suggest improvements, don't just point out problems
• Ask questions if something is unclear
• Approve when ready or request changes with explanation

Resources:

• How to Review PRs
• Writing Good Review Comments

---

Pairing by Learning Room Grouping Engine