The normative statements around when to apply aria-invalid=true on an aria-required=true control is different from the observed state exposed by native control which has a required attribute

ARIA

When the user attempts to submit data involving a field for which aria-required is true, authors MAY use the aria-invalid attribute to signal there is an error. However, if the user has not attempted to submit the form, authors SHOULD NOT set the aria-invalid attribute on required widgets simply because the user has not yet entered data.

in HTML if the required attribute is set the state of an empty input control is one of suffering from being missing

So for native HTML controls if the required attribute is set the invalid state is also set in accessibility APIs, until the control is no longer suffering from being missing, the opposite is true for aria-required and normative statements in the ARIA spec advocate advocate the opposite of native HTML behaviour

This mismatch was raised 10 years ago at the time an implementer was against aligning/changing the HTML behaviour.

Is it time the ARIA spec aligned with the HTML spec on this? Rather than advising the opposite.