Some notes from the 2024-04-11 meeting:

• This question also applies to Passed Example 3.
• It was pointed out that in Passed Examples 2 and 3, the unclipped text does not contain the full text of the poem. This gives it a stronger argument to pass, similar in spirit to the "ambiguous to users in general" wording of SC 2.4.4.

What I wrote above - that "Passed Example 2 passes because it has a "link to a full version"." - is now in doubt. Maybe it passes because it uses ellipsis. This comment supports that.

Similarly, maybe Passed Example 3 passes not because it has a link to a full version, but rather because it uses line-height that way and hence passes the "except" clause of Expectation 2.

I opened an issue at WCAG.

I have drafted a response to the WCAG issue. However, this may speak to a lack of context in the ACT template.

I believe one of the ways rules are created is that tests in 2.x techniques are reviewed and incorporated into test cases. That is, where the working group has reviewed a sufficient technique and confirmed that meeting it meets the success criterion, by inference a test rule that produces the same outcome using the test seems to be a valid test for a pass or fail (depending on the kind of technique).

Adding some explanation to the Assumptions section about truncation and ways it can meet may help to address.

That makes sense to me. I'll work towards that.