Pulled duplicated paragraph (between Goals and Challenge #1); removed…

… an errant + symbol.

conformance-challenges/index.html

@@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ <h3>Goals</h3>
 <p>The goals of this document are to catalog and characterize the challenges with accessibility guidelines conformance, and conformance verification.  We believe that a better understanding of the situations in which the WCAG 2.x
 conformance model may be difficult or impossible to apply, and the places where accessibility conformance verification scales poorly if at all, can lead to more effective conformance models and testing approaches in the future.</p>
 
-<p>It is important to recognize that the places where WCAG 2.x conformance applies poorly, and the places where conformance verification scales poorly, nonetheless remain important to achieving accessibility.  For example, while requiring human judgement to validate a page may not scale (the core of Challenge #1 below), absent that human judgement it may not be possible to deliver a fully accessible web page.  Similarly, while it may not be possible+to ensure that all 3rd party content is fully accessible (the subject of Challenge #3 below), absent review of that content by a human sufficiently versed in accessibility it may again not be possible to ensure that content
+<p>It is important to recognize that the places where WCAG 2.x conformance applies poorly, and the places where conformance verification scales poorly, nonetheless remain important to achieving accessibility.  For example, while requiring human judgement to validate a page may not scale (the core of Challenge #1 below), absent that human judgement it may not be possible to deliver a fully accessible web page.  Similarly, while it may not be possible to ensure that all 3rd party content is fully accessible (the subject of Challenge #3 below), absent review of that content by a human sufficiently versed in accessibility it may again not be possible to ensure that content
 is fully accessible.  Human judgement is a core part of much of WCAG 2.x for good reasons, and the challenges that arise from it important to successfully grapple with.</p>
 	    <p>We are publishing this document now, as a First Public Working Draft, to seek public comment and assistance in further cataloging and characterizing these challenges, so that this work can become input into the next major
 	    revision of W3C accessibility
@@ -52,7 +52,6 @@ <h2>Challenge #1: Scaling Conformance Verification</h2>
 HTML markup can be automatically validated to confirm that it is used according to specification, but a human is required to verify whether the HTML elements used correctly reflect the meaning of the content. For example, text on a web page marked contained in a paragraph element may not trigger any failure in an automated test, nor would an image with alternative text  equal to "red, white, and blue bird", but a human will identify that the text needs to be enclosed in a heading element to reflect the actual use on the page, and also that the proper alternative text for the image is "American Airlines logo". Many existing accessibility success criteria expect informed human evaluation to ensure that the end users benefit from conformance.
 	    The same can be said of very large web-based applications that are developed in an agile manner with updates delivered in rapid succession, often on an hourly basis.</p>
             <p>We can think of this as the distinction between quantitative and qualitative analysis. We know how to automatically test for and count the occurrences of relevant markup. However, we do not yet know how to automatically verify the quality of what that markup conveys to the user. In the case of adjudging appropriate quality, informed human review is still required.</p>
-	    <p>It is important to recognize that the places where WCAG 2.x conformance applies poorly, and the places where conformance verification scales poorly, nonetheless remain important to achieving accessibility.  For example, while requiring human judgement to validate a page may not scale (the core of Challenge #1 below), absent that human judgement it may not be possible to deliver a fully accessible web page.  Similarly, while it may not be possible to ensure that all 3rd party content is fully accessible (the subject of Challenge #3 below), absent review of that content by a human sufficiently versed in accessibility it may again not be possible to ensure that content is fully accessible.  Human judgement is a core part of much of WCAG 2.x for good reasons, and the challenges that arise from it important to successfully grapple with.</p>
             <p>This (growing) section describes challenges with applying the WCAG 2.x conformance model to specific Guidelines and Success Criteria, primarily based on required human involvement in evaluation of conformance to them. In this draft, the list is not  exhaustive, but we intend it to cover all known challenges with at least all A and AA Success Criteria, by the time this Note is completed.</p>
             <section>
 <h3>Text Alternatives for Non-Text Content</h3>