Soft UI, and the reason it fails an audit
The style is defined entirely by shadow. This measures the edge and says exactly how far short of 3:1 it falls.
Soft UI, and the reason it fails an audit
The style is defined entirely by shadow, so a control and its surface sit within about a point of each other. This measures that edge and tells you exactly how far short it falls.
How the two shadows are built
The light and dark edges are the surface colour moved up and down in OKLCH lightness, not mixed with white and black. Mixing toward white desaturates and mixing toward black muddies, and on any tinted surface both are visible as a colour shift rather than a lighting change.
The strongest edge is measured against the surface and compared with the 3:1 that WCAG 1.4.11 asks for on anything you have to identify to use.
This is not a settings problem
Raising the intensity until the edge reaches 3:1 produces something that no longer reads as neumorphic — the whole aesthetic is the near-absence of an edge. The two goals are in direct conflict, and no combination of the controls above satisfies both.
That is worth knowing before it reaches an audit rather than after. If the style matters more than the criterion, that is a decision someone can make deliberately; what should not happen is making it by accident.
Where it can work
Decorative panels that are not controls are outside 1.4.11. A neumorphic card containing normally-bordered buttons is fine; a neumorphic button is not.
Adding a visible border or a filled background to the interactive elements keeps most of the look and fixes the problem, which is the compromise most teams land on.