Review an alternate format for information equivalence

A text version of a diagram can read smoothly while changing its meaning. A list may turn an optional consultation into a required step, or omit a condition carried by an arrow. Review the information that survives the conversion before judging the alternate version's writing style.

Inventory what the source communicates

Identify the source's facts, labels, order, relationships, and exceptions. Inspect the legend as well as the boxes. Record which meanings depend on color, position, a connector style, or a note outside the main sequence. Keep uncertain meanings marked for clarification rather than translating your own guess.

Fictional practice example: an invented diagram has three stages, draft, review, and publication. Solid arrows require review before publication. A dotted side arrow allows optional consultation while drafting. The legend explains the difference. The first text version lists consultation as a required step. This is synthetic practice material; no actual workflow or completed accessibility assessment is being reported.

Define common content questions

Write questions that both versions should answer: what must happen before publication, when consultation is allowed, and whether consultation is necessary to finish. Include a question about an exception rather than checking only the main sequence. Use the source's actual distinctions instead of inventing a new condition to make the exercise more elaborate.

Make an equivalence ledger linking each question to the source element that answers it. Add the corresponding location in the text version. A matching heading is not sufficient when the relationship inside the section differs. This ledger lets reviewers identify what was omitted or altered without depending on the converter's explanation.

Write relationships explicitly in text

Describe the sequence and the optional branch using words that preserve their roles. In the example, say that the draft receives review before publication, and that consultation is available during drafting but is not a prerequisite. Avoid reproducing every visual position if its location carries no additional information.

When the source is ambiguous, ask its owner to resolve the meaning and update both versions consistently. Do not silently improve the process only in the text version. A revised workflow can be useful, but it is a different change from providing equivalent information. Keep that decision separate in the ledger.

Compare independent answers

Have one reviewer use only the visual source and another use only the alternate text. Give each the same content questions without coaching. Record their answers and the elements they relied on. A disagreement may reveal information lost in conversion, ambiguity already present in the source, or a poorly phrased test question.

In the fictional example, a text-only reviewer who says consultation is mandatory has found a material difference. Repair the sentence and repeat the question with a fresh reading. Also inspect whether the corrected wording accidentally removes the requirement for review before publication. Fixing one branch can alter another relationship if the whole passage is rewritten casually.

Record coverage and unresolved limits

For each source meaning, mark whether it is preserved, changed, missing, or still unclear. Keep the corrected text, source context, content questions, and unresolved issues together in the existing document record. Check freshness when the source changes; equivalence at one version does not automatically extend to a later diagram.

The finished review establishes which information was compared and how the answers matched. It does not certify legal or technical accessibility conformance, nor cover every reader's needs. If order or exception meaning remains different, keep the alternate version unresolved even when its prose is clear and its title matches the source.