One of the foundational distinctions in the SAT framework is between acceptance and acceptability, two closely related but conceptually distinct notions. 

● Acceptance refers to the descriptive, situated perceptions and reactions of stakeholders toward a given technology. It captures how different groups experience, interpret, and respond to a technology based on their values, expectations, lived realities, and the context in which the technology is introduced. It includes both positive and negative reactions, trust or skepticism, enthusiasm or resistance. 

● Acceptability, on the other hand, is normative. It involves ethical, legal, or societal evaluations, often by experts or institutions, about whether a technology should be used, and under what conditions. It draws on frameworks of justice, human rights, sustainability, or democratic legitimacy to determine whether a technology meets broader societal standards. 

SAT focuses on evaluating social acceptance as a dynamic and contextual process. However, it does so with close attention to the values, risks, and ethical concerns that shape acceptability. In this way, SAT helps identify where public perceptions and normative assessments align - and where they diverge. 

For example, a technology like facial recognition surveillance may be widely accepted in terms of everyday use and perceived convenience, yet ethically contested due to privacy violations and discriminatory outcomes - ranking low in acceptability. 

Conversely, some renewable energy projects may be highly acceptable in ethical and sustainability terms, but face low acceptance due to local opposition, mistrust, or inadequate engagement. 

This distinction enables SAT to surface hidden tensions and support more responsible, value-sensitive innovation.