An evidence report
Results linked to test artefacts, reviewed decisions and the product version. Open issues and untested areas stay visible.
Explore the sample reportFor software teams
Accessibility fixes you can prove.
We repair accessibility issues in your code and verify the results—with evidence your engineers and buyers can review.
Apply for a pilot
One agreed user journey. A clear scope before we start.
One button. A complete evidence trail.
Illustrative demoIssue found · WCAG 4.1.2
A button you can see, but cannot identify.
Linen apron
Example product card
Example screen-reader output
“Button.”
The bag icon has no accessible name. A shopper cannot tell what the control does.
Proposed fix · ProductCard.tsx
Name the action and the product.
− <button><BagIcon /></button>+ <button type="button">+ <BagIcon aria-hidden="true" />+ <span className="visually-hidden">+ Add to bag, Linen apron+ </span>+ </button>The engineer reviews the change. Your team decides whether to merge it. Event handlers are omitted from this simplified example.
Expected result · separate verification
The action is now understandable.
Illustrative NVDA announcement
“Add to bag, Linen apron, button.”
- Name and role exposed to assistive technology
- Keyboard activation checked separately
- Evidence linked to the tested version
A real report includes the test environment, recording and result. This example does not run a live test.
Human review · documented decision
A result someone else can check.
- Scope
- Product-card button · WCAG 4.1.2
- Decision
- Action and product name are clear
- Reviewer
- A named accessibility reviewer in your report
- Version
- Before and after commits recorded
This verifies one repair in its stated scope. Other criteria and unresolved issues remain visible in the report.
Explore the sample evidence →Fictional product and results. Choose a step to explore; nothing plays automatically.
Explore a full sample report
See the findings, fixes and decisions in context.
Why now
The shortcuts stopped working.
95.9%
of the top million home pages fail WCAG checks; errors per page rose 10% in a year
3,117
US federal web accessibility lawsuits in 2025, up 27%
$1M
FTC order against an overlay vendor for compliance claims, 2025
Sources: WebAIM Million 2026, Seyfarth Shaw, FTC order. Dates and laws on the compliance page.
How verification works
A separate check.
A traceable result.
Separating verification from fix generation helps reduce shared assumptions and missed defects. Human reviewers decide the questions that need judgement.
System 1 · Fixer
Writes the change
- Reads your code and the defect
- Drafts a fix inside rules we wrote
- An engineer reviews it
Sees your code, the defect, the rule set
System 2 · Verifier
Grades the result
- Runs rules on the rendered page
- Records screen-reader and keyboard runs
- Calculates contrast from browser-derived colours
Never sees the fixer's prompts, drafts or reasoning
What reaches your team
Useful in engineering.
Ready for review.
Reviewable code fixes
Small pull requests that explain the issue, the change and its verification. Your engineers review and merge them.
See how fixes arriveOngoing monitoring
Repeat agreed checks on a schedule or release trigger. New features and human reassessment have an explicit scope.
See monitoring scopeLook inside the evidence
What passed.
What didn’t.
Why.
Explore a complete illustrative report: the code changes, screen-reader transcripts and decisions behind the results.
Read the sample reportFictional demonstration, not a customer case study.
SAMPLE / FERNHILL GOODSOpen finding
The payment frame still needs a fix.
A third-party help icon misses the target-size requirement. It stays in the report, with an owner and a plan.
- Criterion
- 2.5.8 · Target Size (Minimum)
- Result
- Partially supports
- Next step
- Update the provider’s card fields and re-test
Pricing
Start with a scope.
Build from there.
Agree the user journeys, test environments and deliverables before work begins.
Assessment and ACR
From $2,000 / product
Scoped WCAG assessment, evidence and a prioritised fix list. Agree ACR requirements with your buyer.
Verified fixes
Scoped per project
Source-code repairs, engineering review and separate verification of the agreed changes.
Monitoring
From $300 / month
Automated regression checks for an agreed inventory. Human reviews and new journeys scoped separately.
Beyond accessibility. The same evidence engine applies to the EU Cyber Resilience Act, whose main obligations reach every software and connected product sold in Europe from 11 December 2027. What the CRA requires
What does the pilot include?
One agreed user journey, a prioritised set of defects, scoped fix pull requests and an evidence report. We agree your review effort and our deliverables before access is shared. A full-product audit or ACR is a separate scope.
How much time will my team need?
We estimate it in the scoping call. You provide a staging environment, test accounts and a reviewer. We batch questions and decisions so your team can review them together.
Which standards do you assess?
WCAG 2.2 A and AA are our assessment target. Your scope identifies the relevant criteria, test methods and any additional reporting requirements. Laws and procurement standards have different requirements; an evidence report is not legal certification. Read about laws and standards.
What access do you need?
We agree access to staging and source code during scoping. Test accounts keep customer data out of recordings. Your team controls merges. Security and data handling.
How is this different from a scanner or audit?
The offer combines assessment, code repairs and verification evidence. Other providers offer different combinations of tools and specialist services. Compare the delivery scope, test coverage and review process. Questions to ask when comparing providers.
Bring one journey. See the whole process.
Start with a focused pilot for your software team. We agree the scope, deliver the fixes and evidence, and review the result together.