The Decision You're Making
A product data sheet is a marketing document. A test report is evidence. The two are not the same thing, and the gap between them is where most non-compliance on site begins.
When a tactile indicator fails an access audit after installation, the cost is never the product. It is the removal, the substrate repair, the re-supply, the re-installation and the programme delay. Asking four questions at specification stage costs nothing.
1. Luminance contrast, and the surface it was measured against
Ask for: a luminance contrast result stating the method used and the substrate it was tested against.
AS/NZS 1428.4.1:2009 clause 2.2 sets three minimums, by construction type:
| Type | Minimum luminance contrast |
|---|---|
| Integrated TGSI, base and dome one material | 30% |
| Discrete TGSI, single colour stud | 45% |
| Composite discrete TGSI, contrasting top | 60% |
Here is the part most specifications miss. Contrast is a relationship, not a property. A tactile has no luminance contrast on its own, only against a particular floor. A supplier who quotes a percentage without naming the surface it was measured against has not told you anything you can rely on.
The method matters too. AS/NZS 1428.4.1:2009 sets out the Bowman-Sapolinski equation in Appendix E, and AS 1428.1:2021 repeats it in Appendix B. A figure quoted with no method behind it cannot be checked.
2. Slip resistance, with the test method named
Ask for: a slip resistance classification to AS 4586, with the test method stated.
AS 4586 covers several different test methods, and a product's rating depends on which one was used. A bare "P5" claim with no method behind it is not verifiable.
For stairs, HB 198:2014 recommends P3 for internal dry and P4 for external wet as deemed-to-satisfy minimums, and P5 for uncovered external steps. Those are recommendations in a handbook, not clauses in the Code, and it is worth knowing the difference when a certifier asks.
Ask whether the testing was done by a NATA-accredited laboratory. That is not a regulatory requirement in itself, but it is the difference between a result you can defend and a number generated in-house.
3. Which edition of the standard the evidence is written against
Ask for: the edition of AS 1428.1 the supplier is citing.
NCC 2022 Amendment 2 moved the referenced edition from AS 1428.1:2009 to AS 1428.1:2021, and that took effect on 29 July 2025. The Disability (Access to Premises - Buildings) Standards 2010 were amended to reference the same edition from the same date.
Evidence written against the superseded edition is not automatically wrong, but you need to know which one you are holding. A supplier who cannot tell you has not read their own documents recently.
4. Fire, but only once you know your building class
Ask for: critical radiant flux data to AS ISO 9239.1, and check it against your own building class, location and sprinkler status.
This is the question most often asked backwards. Under NCC 2022, the fire hazard properties of floor linings and floor coverings are set by Specification 7, clause S7C3, which applies to Class 2 to 9 buildings. The required critical radiant flux is not a single figure. Table S7C3 varies it by building classification, by where the material sits in the building, and by whether the building is sprinklered:
| Situation | Minimum critical radiant flux |
|---|---|
| Class 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 or 9b, unsprinklered | 2.2 kW/m² |
| Same classes, sprinklered | 1.2 kW/m² |
| Class 3 accommodation for the aged, unsprinklered | 4.5 kW/m² |
Where the building is unsprinklered, S7C3(b) also caps the smoke development rate at 750 percent-minutes. If a floor covering is carried more than 150mm up a wall, S7C3(c) brings the wall lining group number requirements into play as well.
So the useful question is not "is this product fire compliant". It is "what does my class, location and sprinkler status require, and can you show me an AS ISO 9239.1 result that meets it". A supplier quoting one number for every project has not engaged with the table.
Two further points worth holding on to. There is no exemption in S7C3 for small areas or for particular material types, so a tactile or nosing being a minor part of the floor area does not remove the question. And whether a discrete stud tactile or a nosing strip is itself a "floor lining or floor covering" is a judgement for the certifier rather than something the Code spells out, so the honest position is to ask what evidence exists and let the certifier decide, not to assume either way.
Non-combustibility is a separate question again. That is tested and deemed under different provisions and answers "will this material contribute fuel", not "how does this floor covering behave in a corridor fire". A supplier who conflates the two is guessing.
The short version
Four questions, in the order they matter:
- What substrate was the luminance contrast measured against, and by which method?
- Which AS 4586 test method produced that slip rating, and was the lab NATA-accredited?
- Which edition of AS 1428.1 is the evidence written against?
- What critical radiant flux does my class, location and sprinkler status require, and is there an AS ISO 9239.1 result to match?
Any supplier can say a product complies. Ask for the document. If it arrives with the method named, the substrate named and the edition named, you can specify with confidence. If it does not arrive at all, you have learned something more useful.