Yes, one audit can produce both, and buying two evaluations to produce two documents is a common and avoidable expense. What travels between them is the evidence, not the prose. The conformance report needs a verdict on every criterion in the edition your buyer named. The statement needs the plain-English version of what is broken, written for somebody trying to use the site rather than trying to purchase it.
Settle this before the audit, not after
Which edition the buyer wants, and which standard it reports against. An audit run at WCAG 2.2 leaves you with evidence the Section 508 edition has no rows for, and an audit run at 2.0 leaves rows in the WCAG edition with nothing behind them.
What Actually Carries Across
Three things, and they are the three that cost money to produce. The criterion-by-criterion verdicts, which become the conformance column. The description of each failure, which becomes the remarks and, in different words, the known limitations. And the record of what was tested, which is the only thing that keeps either document honest about its own reach.
What does not carry across is tone or structure. Nobody reading your statement wants a criterion number, and nobody filling in a conformance report can use the sentence you wrote for a customer.
Findings Become Two Columns
A conformance report gives each criterion a level of support and a remark. The template sets a content standard for the failing rows: the remark should identify the functions or features with issues, and how they do not fully support the criterion. Where a criterion does not apply, explain why. Where an accessible alternative exists, describe it.
That is a good specification for an audit finding too, which is the point. If your report tells you which feature broke and how, the remarks write themselves. If it gives you a criterion number and a screenshot, somebody is about to invent the remarks, and invented remarks are how a report ends up saying something the evidence does not support.
One caution on the template's own language. The header fields use must. The remarks guidance uses should. So a filled cell is the requirement and a useful cell is guidance, which is why so many reports carry remarks that say nothing.
The Edition Decides Which Rows Exist
There are four editions of the current template, and they do not report against the same WCAG version. The Section 508 edition sits at WCAG 2.0, because the regulation behind it incorporates WCAG 2.0 at a fixed date. The EU edition sits at WCAG 2.1, because EN 301 549 does. Only the WCAG and INT editions reach WCAG 2.2.
So ask which one before you scope the audit. Testing against 2.2 and reporting on the 508 edition means you paid for evidence about nine criteria that have no row. Testing against 2.0 and reporting on the WCAG edition means those rows arrive empty, and the template gives you nowhere honest to say so.
The Answer You Cannot Give at Level AA
The template offers five terms: Supports, Partially Supports, Does Not Support, Not Applicable, and Not Evaluated. The fifth carries a restriction printed next to its own definition. It can only be used for WCAG Level AAA criteria.
Read what that means for an audit. At Levels A and AA, which are the levels laws actually name, there is no way to write we did not test this. Every available answer asserts a finding. An untested criterion and a tested, passing criterion look identical on the page to whoever reads it.
Why this changes what you buy
If a conformance report is the destination, the audit has to reach every criterion at the target level, not just the ones your sample happened to exercise. A partial evaluation and a full report is the combination that produces a document nobody can defend.
The Statement Needs the Same List, for a Different Reader
W3C names three required elements for a statement: a commitment to accessibility, the standard applied, and a way to get in touch. Known limitations lead its recommended list, and that is the same list as your failing rows, rewritten as things a person might run into.
Where a law prescribes the statement, the law's format governs and the mandatory sections are not yours to reorganize. The European model, which sits behind the UK, French, Italian, German and Dutch versions, requires a compliance status chosen from three fixed options and a non-accessible content section split into named categories. Our accessibility statement guide covers which of those applies to you.
The Third Document Your Audit Also Produces
If your evaluation followed W3C's method, it can end in an evaluation statement, and that is not a conformance claim and not an ACR. It carries six things: the date, the guidelines title with version and address, the level evaluated, the definition of the product, the technologies relied upon, and the accessibility support baseline.
It can only be made when every non-optional requirement of the method was satisfied and every sample evaluated met the target. Which is a high bar, honestly stated, and worth knowing about because it is the document that most accurately describes what an audit found.
Where the Sample Stops
A sampled evaluation cannot support a conformance claim for a whole site. W3C's reason is stronger than the usual paraphrase: not that a sample is unrepresentative, but that it is always possible an unexamined page carries an error. No sample size answers that.
Which is why both documents have to carry the sample forward rather than quietly widening as the evidence gets retyped. A conformance claim has to describe the pages it covers. A statement has to say what its scope is. And a conformance report has no scope field at all, so the honest place for it is the notes, and that is the vendor's own choice to make.