Mustang reports valid although PDF/A validation fails

Your application calls wasCompletelyValid() and receives true. The detailed report nevertheless contains a PDF/A failure while the embedded invoice XML passes. An original Mustang 2.26.0 report describes this contradictory summary. Q1 In that situation, the single return value is not sufficient evidence for automated acceptance.

Name the separate validation layers

A hybrid invoice combines a PDF representation with machine-readable data. Their technical checks answer different questions. veraPDF supports explicit PDF/A profile selection and reports its conformance result. Q2 A document that could not be processed also differs from one successfully checked and found non-conforming.

Reproduce the contradiction

1. Fix the input identity. Preserve the file and its hash. Confirm that the API result and detailed report refer to the same bytes. A newly generated export may already have different document properties.
2. Read the complete report. Record PDF/A, invoice XML and aggregate results separately. Keep warnings distinct from failures. A colour-coded summary should not erase those differences.
3. Validate the PDF independently. Use a traceable PDF/A validator and the profile required by the intended workflow. Record tool version and profile. Do not keep switching profiles merely until one reports success.
4. Repeat through the integration. Compare the direct library result, any wrapper and the status shown to users. Determine whether the library already overlooks a failure or whether your own summary loses it later. That distinction identifies where the correction belongs.
5. Express acceptance requirements explicitly. Define which technical layers are required and what happens when a result is missing. A failure in one required layer must not be cancelled out by success in another required layer.

Verify the corrected decision

Test a representative valid sample and examples with deliberately separate PDF and XML failures. The revised interpretation should recognise both failure types. An announced vendor correction becomes relevant only when the installed version and this comparison demonstrate the intended behaviour.

For handoff, provide version details, selected profile, sanitised individual reports and the API call. Technical validation evaluates the chosen rules; it is not blanket legal or tax approval of the document. Keep the complete results associated with the exact input so that a later status review can reproduce the decision.

Frequently asked questions

Is valid invoice XML sufficient?

That depends on the defined technical exchange format. If PDF/A is also required, that additional layer must pass as well.

Can I ignore PDF/A errors because the file opens?

Readable appearance and conformance with a specified PDF/A profile are different properties. A successful viewer test does not replace the required profile check.

Describe your case