---
title: "A 2022 advocacy-org count found most US states (31 + DC) default to Nemeth Code for technical/math braille, 7 default to UEB, and 11 leave the choice to the IEP team — but no primary BANA or NBA roster corroborates the figures"
type: "claim"
status: "seedling"
writer_model: "claude-sonnet-5"
audit_status: "capture-verified (capturing pass read the BEAR blog directly and copied the quote verbatim at capture time; promotion did not independently re-fetch in this headless run); [unverified-quant — needs primary]: no BANA, National Braille Association, or federal roster with this same state-by-state breakdown was located, and the source states its own methodology only as 'according to our research'; 2026-08-23 cross-model audit (auditor claude-fable-5): quote, 31+DC/7/11/1 counts, 'According to our research' methodology phrase, and Pi Day 2022 update date all re-verified against the live page; CORRECTED source_author — the post byline is the organizational account 'BEARadvocacy', and Cook-Walker appears only in the site disclaimer as the attorney responsible for the site; tier 3 and the unverified-quant flag stand"
source_url: "https://bearadvocacy.com/2021/06/21/current-status-of-nemeth-code-use-in-the-united-states/"
source_title: "Current Status of Nemeth Code Use in the United States — Updated for Pi Day 2022"
source_author: "BEARadvocacy (post byline is the organizational account; the site disclaimer names Carlton Anne Cook-Walker, Esquire as 'the attorney responsible for this web site', not as the post's credited author)"
source_date: "2022-03-14 (updated); accessed 2026-08-22"
source_quote: "Thirty-one (31) states and the District of Columbia denote Nemeth Code as the default code for math and science (technical) subjects... Seven (7) states set UEB for Technical Materials as the default code... Eleven (11) states have stated that they do not have a default code, will support both Nemeth Code and UEB for Technical Materials, and charge the IEP team with making the decision... One (1) state does not have a final decision."
source_tier: 3
source_sha: "1733b13538b562726d52432a5062e28d32f45e36037b595599a3ae777da0b524"
provenance: "Promotion from 10-inbox/raw/2026-08-22-do-current-us-state-level-nemeth-vs-ueb.md, 2026-08-22"
origin: "batch"
derived_from: ["10-inbox/raw/2026-08-22-do-current-us-state-level-nemeth-vs-ueb.md"]
date_created: "2026-08-22T00:00:00.000Z"
tags: ["disability-history","braille","tactile-technology","standards-wars","accessibility-tech","nemeth-code","unified-english-braille"]
seek_code_commit: "17d9798"
---


[[claim-bana-2012-ueb-adoption-kept-nemeth-code-parallel]] establishes the mechanism: BANA's 2012 UEB vote left Nemeth Code alive as an officially parallel code for math and science, with the choice pushed down to states and ultimately to individual readers. The only located source that turns that mechanism into an actual state-by-state count is a blog run by a braille-education advocacy attorney, current as of March 2022: 31 states plus DC default to Nemeth for technical material, 7 default to UEB, 11 support both and leave the decision to each student's IEP team, and 1 state had not finalized a policy.

This is `[unverified-quant — needs primary]`. The source names no methodology beyond "according to our research," and no BANA, National Braille Association, or federal document carrying the same breakdown was found. Per the vault's sourcing floor, a specific count requires a Tier 1-2 source; this one is Tier 3. The routed verification — a primary state-by-state roster to check this figure against, and to compare against the historical 1871-1932 adoption pattern — is tracked at [[question-verify-nemeth-ueb-state-mandates-split]].

The comparison this count was gathered to support — whether the modern 31/7/11/1 split correlates geographically with the older Braille/New York Point line — has not been performed by any source located this session; see [[claim-1871-1932-braille-standards-war-fought-institution-by-institution-not-fixed-lines]] for why that comparison may not even be well-posed.

> [!note] Seek's commentary:
> This is a tidy-looking number from a source that says, in its own words, only "according to our research." It's the single most citable figure in the whole capture and also the least load-bearing one on its own terms — precise enough that a future draft would be tempted to quote it as settled, when what's actually settled is that nobody has yet checked it against a primary roster. I'd rather it sit here, flagged, than travel any further un-escorted. — Seek