Real audits of our own production sites, published complete — the same format, method, and fix list a client receives. We publish our own defects before we ask to find yours.
Two reports: the full audit (our own production site, October 26, 2026 — one real High-severity defect, found, fixed, and re-verified) and the verification pass (this site and our accessibility explainer, November 2, 2026 — also available as the original PDF).
Full audit · October 26, 2026
Prepared by Glen Hedstrom — Website QA & Accessibility Audits. This sample is a real audit of a real production site (the author’s own business site), performed with the same method and tooling used for client work. Client reports follow this exact format.
The site is in good health: fast, light, and error-free on the main page at every size tested. One real defect was found — a data table on the Pulse page that overflowed a phone screen by roughly 300 pixels, hiding its right-hand columns from mobile visitors. The defect was fixed the same day and the fix was re-verified on all viewports.
F1 — Data table overflows phone screens (SEVERITY: High — FIXED & RE-VERIFIED)
On the Pulse page, the “ZIP / Permits issued” table rendered 640 CSS px wide inside a scrollable wrapper. On a 360px phone, roughly 300px of the table — including permit counts — sat off-screen. Mobile visitors (the majority of this site’s ad traffic) could not read the full table.
Fix applied: under 560px the table now stacks as labeled cards (each row’s cells carry labels, so nothing loses its meaning). Re-verification: after the fix, 0 overflowing elements and 0 clipped elements on every viewport; home page unchanged.
F2 — Swipeable card decks extend beyond the phone viewport (SEVERITY: None — by design)
146 elements measure beyond the phone viewport on the home page. Manual review confirmed every one sits inside the intentionally swipeable card decks (horizontal galleries). This is the expected pattern, not a defect — listed here because a raw automated scan will flag it, and part of an audit is separating real defects from scanner noise.
This report, with screenshots of every finding, a priority-ordered fix list a developer can work from directly, and (Deep Audit tier) a re-verification pass after fixes are applied.
Sample report · Real audit of our own sites
Every finding verified and shown with evidence — the same format, method, and fix list a client receives.
Disclosure, up front: this audit was performed by Eva, an AI operator, and reviewed by Glen Hedstrom, the seller of record, before publication. The audited sites are our own production sites, named openly below — a sample you can re-check yourself, link by link.
Both pages are in good health. Every link on both pages resolves (10 of 10), every source the explainer page cites is the real primary document it claims to be, and the deadline dates printed on the page match the rules themselves. No defects were found. One informational observation is logged (O1) — included because a real audit writes down what it noticed, graded honestly, instead of inflating it into a “finding.”
| Check | Result | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Link verification — every outbound & internal link followed and its destination read | PASS · 10/10 | Explainer page: 6 source citations + 1 internal navigation link, all live. Proof Before Launch: 3 calls to action, all resolving to the live Contra storefront they name. Zero dead links, zero wrong destinations. |
| Citation accuracy — the explainer’s six sources opened and compared against the claims they support | PASS · 6/6 | DOJ Title II interim final rule (RIN 1190-AA82): the rule’s own summary reads April 26, 2027 / April 26, 2028 — the page’s table matches. HHS Section 504 rule (RIN 0945-AA30): May 11, 2027 / May 10, 2028 confirmed against the cited rule. DOJ statement of interest (Alcazar v. Fashion Nova), Hawaiʻi Civil Rights Commission Act 257 notice, W3C WCAG 2 changelog (Sept 17, 2026 entry), and the WCAG 3.0 draft — each is the document the page says it is, and each says what the page reports. |
| Conversion path — Proof Before Launch | PASS | All three calls to action land on the Contra storefront, where the sample audit the page promises (“Read the full sample audit on our Contra profile”) is actually published. The promise and the destination agree. |
| Page structure, as served | PASS | One top-level heading per page; heading order sequential; the deadlines data table carries a proper header row, so its cells keep their meaning out of visual context. |
| Disclosure presence | PASS | Both pages state in their own text that the work is performed by an AI operator and reviewed by the owner — the same disclosure this report carries. |
| Forms & contact paths | N/A — by design | Neither page presents a form; Proof Before Launch converts through its storefront. An audit records “absent by design” instead of reporting a form test that never happened. Where a client site has forms, each one is submitted and its landing point verified. |
O1 — Sources heading is two adjacent headings (SEVERITY: INFORMATIONAL — NOT A DEFECT)
On the explainer page, the sources section opens with two neighboring headings (“Receipts” and “Sources”) that run together when the page is read as plain text. On screen they present as a styled section header. Logged as an observation with a recommendation for a visual once-over — the same discipline that keeps scanner noise out of a client’s fix list.
One informational observation (O1) above. A clean bill, with the receipts shown — that is a deliverable too.
This document is a verification pass: links, citations, structure, and conversion paths, checked live on November 2, 2026. The full audit method adds rendering and measurement at four sizes (360px phone · 390px phone · 768px tablet · desktop), form-submission tests, and a WCAG 2.1 AA pass (automated scan plus manual checks). That full method, on the same kind of evidence standard, is the published sample in this gig’s gallery (our own production site, October 26, 2026 — one real High-severity defect, fixed the same day and re-verified).
An audit is a report with evidence — it is not a legal compliance certification, and no report can certify a website compliant. Conformance is earned by doing the fixes and confirmed by re-testing.
Download this report as the original PDF — the same document published with our marketplace profiles.
Sample audit — our own sites, audited Nov 2, 2026 · Performed by Eva, a disclosed AI operator · Reviewed by Glen Hedstrom, seller of record