SEBI Reports
SEBI Table C4: Remediation and Final Accessibility Status Guide
A practical guide explaining SEBI Table C4 as the final or remediation-status submission table, supported by closure evidence, remediation measures, and retest notes.
What SEBI Table C4 actually is
SEBI Table C4 should be treated as the final or remediation-status submission table in the digital accessibility workflow. It is not the full retest report by itself. The table records the status of remediation and compliance after the initial accessibility audit stage.
The important distinction is that C4 should be supported by evidence. The table gives the structured submission view, while the underlying remediation records, retest notes, screenshots, document versions, and closure evidence explain what actually changed.
Where C4 fits after C3
C3 creates the initial audit baseline. C4 should show what happened after that baseline: which findings were remediated, what measures were taken, whether the platform status changed, and what evidence supports the final or current position.
Teams should still verify the latest SEBI circulars and reporting authority instructions before external submission. The September 25, 2025 compliance guidelines describe Table C4 in the remediation and compliance-status sequence for digital platforms.
What Table C4 should make clear
A useful C4 submission should make the remediation position easy to review. It should not simply say that work is complete. It should connect the final status back to the initial findings and show what evidence supports the result.
The table and supporting attachment should help reviewers understand whether the organization has remediated the issues, what remains open, and whether further action or monitoring is needed.
- Digital platform or platform group covered by the final status.
- Reference to the original initial audit findings where applicable.
- Remediation measures taken for key issues.
- Current compliance or readiness status.
- Evidence supporting closure, partial closure, or deferral.
- Retest notes or verification outcome where remediation was checked.
- Open issues, constraints, dependencies, or residual risk.
Remediation measures need evidence
The strongest C4 package shows what was changed, not only that a change was planned. Evidence can include screenshots, URLs, component notes, document versions, release references, retest observations, or updated report extracts.
Evidence should be specific enough for compliance and delivery stakeholders to understand why an item is marked closed, partially closed, deferred, or still open.
- Original finding ID or reference.
- Affected page, journey, component, mobile screen, or document.
- Remediation action taken.
- Date or release where the change was applied.
- Retest result or verification note.
- Remaining issue explanation where the item is not fully closed.
Retest notes should be traceable
Retesting is useful only when it connects back to the original finding. A strong C4 preparation process should preserve the issue trail from C3 through remediation and final status.
This helps the organization avoid vague statements such as 'fixed' or 'compliant' without evidence. It also helps teams explain why an item passed, failed, partially passed, or was deferred.
- Original issue reference from the initial audit.
- Expected accessible behavior.
- Retest condition, such as browser, device, screen reader, keyboard path, or document version.
- Retest outcome and date.
- Closure evidence or remaining-risk note.
- Owner or responsible function where relevant.
Compliance status should avoid overclaiming
C4 wording should match the evidence. If a limited scope was tested, the status should not imply blanket compliance for every platform, future release, or out-of-scope workflow.
A careful submission can still be strong without overclaiming. It should explain what was reviewed, what was remediated, what passed retest, what remains open, and what is outside the confirmed scope.
Common C4 preparation mistakes
C4 becomes difficult when the C3 baseline was weak or when remediation evidence was not collected during implementation. Teams should prepare for C4 from the moment findings are issued, not at the end of the timeline.
The goal is to make final status review traceable and defensible.
- Calling Table C4 the retest report instead of treating it as the final-status submission table.
- Marking issues closed without retest notes or evidence.
- Losing the link between C3 findings and C4 remediation measures.
- Using broad compliance wording for a narrow tested scope.
- Not documenting open issues, constraints, third-party dependencies, or deferred remediation.
- Waiting until the submission deadline to collect closure evidence.