Tips for uploading your report to the DART in 2026

I used the DART last year to upload a complete annual report for a federal government entity. The entity had already written, designed and approved the report as a PDF before it went into the DART. Even with a finished document in hand, the process took far longer than anyone expected — including me.

Here’s what I learned, and what I’d want any annual report coordinator, comms manager or senior executive to know.

Allow more time than you think. Then add more.

If it’s your first time using the DART, or you’re responsible for uploading the entire report rather than just contributing sections, it will take longer than you expect. The entity I worked with had the same experience. They were pleased with the result, but the timeline blew out because neither of us had accounted for learning the tool while managing a complete document.

Build the DART upload into your production schedule as a distinct phase with its own timeline — not an afterthought tacked on after the PDF is signed off. If you’re working with an external writer or consultant, cost and schedule the DART work separately.

Understand why most entities still draft outside the DART

The Department of Finance encourages a ‘Digital First’ approach: draft, review and approve content directly in the DART rather than writing offline and uploading later. In theory, this creates a single source of truth and reduces version control issues.

That constraint is why most entities still produce their report outside the DART and upload the finished product at the end. It’s not resistance to change. The tool doesn’t yet support how annual reports actually get approved. This may change in future versions. Right now, plan for a PDF-first workflow with a dedicated DART upload phase at the end.

Your tables will need reworking

Of all the content types that move from a designed PDF into the DART, tables caused the most problems. Formatting that looked clean in the designed document didn’t survive the transition. Complex tables — merged cells, nested headers, shaded rows — often came through broken or hard to read.

Annual reports are full of tables: financial data, performance results, staffing statistics, remuneration disclosures. If those tables don’t render clearly on the Transparency Portal, you’ve got a readability problem in the sections people are most likely to scrutinise.

Plan for table rework as part of your DART process. Simpler structures translate better. If you know a report is going through the DART, design your tables for both formats from the start — not just for print.

Think about the HTML version from day one

Content that looks polished in a designed PDF doesn’t automatically work as structured HTML. That gap is where many of the pain points live when you upload to the DART.

Write alt text as you develop images and infographics, not as a last-minute task. Think about how complex data visualisations will translate. Use the DART’s cross-referencing and hyperlinking features to help readers navigate between sections.

The Transparency Portal is a public-facing website. For many readers, the HTML version is the first — or only — version they encounter. If you treat the DART upload as an afterthought, it’ll read like one.

The tool can’t fix a content problem

The DART is good infrastructure. Finance maintains a GovTEAMS community with case studies and training, and MasterDocs offers onboarding sessions. These resources cover the mechanics of the tool well.

What they don’t cover is how to write well within it. How to structure a performance narrative that holds together. How to present results honestly without defensive language. How to make mandatory content readable, not just compliant.

The quality gap in federal government annual reports isn’t about infrastructure. It’s about content. Performance narratives that say nothing specific. Overviews written by committee. Sections that meet requirements but communicate nothing.