Case study

Independent audit of a high-traffic transactional website

Real data from our reference project, as of 2026-07-10. The client's name is intentionally omitted from this document — a concrete example is available on request, subject to a confidentiality agreement.

Scale of the audit

45 Documented defects on the main journey — 11 critical, 16 serious, 14 moderate, 4 minor — each with severity, WCAG and RGAA criterion, detection method, verification status, annotated screenshot, and concrete technical recommendation.

21 Additional defects found in a separate cascading audit of 174 pages (footer-linked sections), run via multi-agent orchestration (187 agents).

162 Regulatory criteria (56 WCAG + 106 RGAA) evaluated independently, each with a verdict and test protocol.

Coverage gained through custom tooling

Criteria resolved with concrete evidence, before/after our real-evidence protocols
Metric	First pass (standard automated scan)	After real-evidence protocols
Criteria resolved with concrete evidence	86 / 162 (53%)	140 / 162 (86%)
Criteria remaining "not tested — manual required"	76	22, all documented with a precise protocol for a future human tester

The 54 criteria unlocked between the two columns came from: the NVDA bridge (real captured speech, exact quotes), forced-colors mode, focus-visibility detection via computed-style diffing, a real 30-minute session-timeout wait, vision-assisted triage for unlabeled icons, and about ten other specific DOM/CSS methods cataloged and reusable on other projects.

Systemic defects identified

The analysis surfaced patterns rooted in the site's design system (components shared across every Angular page) — a single component-level fix resolves several findings at once:

Icon buttons without an accessible name (mat-icon-button)
Progress bars without a label (mat-progress-bar)
Accordion panels without an accessible name
Multiple H1 tags per page on single-page applications
aria-modal="true" misapplied to plain buttons

This analysis changes the remediation-effort estimate presented to the client: one component fix can resolve dozens of defects at once, rather than being addressed page by page.

What this case study demonstrates

We don't leave you with a manual checklist

Every criterion that can't be automated gets a concrete test protocol, not just a "check manually" tag.

We test what a real user experiences

A real screen reader's actual voice output, a real elapsed session-timeout wait — not heuristics that approximate behavior.

We separate rigor from speed

Vision-model-assisted triage speeds up detection but is not presented as a final verdict.

We document systemic defects

Not just page-by-page symptoms — one component fix can resolve dozens of defects at once.

A site of this scale to have audited?

This reference project is a very large-scale site, not a simple brochure site — let's talk about your scope.

Apply for a free audit Book a time slot