Services · Formal deliverables

A Progress Delta Report Shows What Got Fixed and What Slipped

For the team that did the fixing and now wants it in writing, so what cleared, what slipped back, and what is still open.

What We Keep Finding

"We think it is better now" is not a line you can hand a client, a regulator, or your own board. After a fix round the real question has three parts. What is fixed, what quietly regressed, and what is still open. A fresh scan cannot answer any of them, and for two reasons rather than one. It has never read last quarter's report, so it has nothing to compare against. And it never touched 32 of the 55 A and AA rules in the first place, so most of what your team just fixed is invisible to it.

The delta report has read that report. We re-audit the same pages, walk the old findings one at a time, and mark each one fixed, regressed, or remaining, with fresh evidence attached either way. New failures that shipped in the meantime get caught too, because releases add as often as they remove, and the site your team has been improving is also the site your team has been changing.

There is one regression this catches that nothing else will, and it is the commonest one in the category. A team gets a finding about an error message that never gets announced. They fix it by moving focus to the error, which is the right instinct, and they add a live region while they are in there, which feels like belt and braces. Now the message announces twice and the second one interrupts the first. Moving focus is a change of context, and a change of context means the message was never a status message and never needed the live region at all. It is a new failure created by a fix that looks correct in the diff, and only a retest that knows what the original finding said will spot it.

If all you want is the retest and a reissued report, that is the remediation verification audit and it is the cheaper door. The delta report is the document that charts the two reports against each other, which is what you want when somebody outside your team has to read the progress rather than take it on trust.

What We Check

Re-test every finding from your previous report, on the same pages
Mark each one fixed, regressed, or remaining, with the evidence attached
Catch the new failures that shipped in between, because releases add as well as remove
Check that each fix did not break the thing standing next to it
Chart the movement in plain counts your stakeholders can quote
Re-rank whatever's left, so the next fix round starts in the right place

What You Get

Every service on this site runs the same three-pass engine: an automated scan, an expert review of all 55 WCAG 2.2 A and AA rules, and a hands-on session with a professional blind screen-reader user. You get one report with every finding screenshotted, ranked by user impact, and linked to its fix. Your team fixes, we verify: the re-audit is half price within 3 months.

The format is not a mystery either. Read the sample report before you spend anything.

The Honest Limit

One honest limit, and one number worth planning around. A delta needs a re-audit underneath it, and that re-audit is half price within 3 months of your first report. After the window closes it is full price again, so the cheapest delta is the one you order while the fixes are still fresh. The comparison document is priced per report on top of it. And the counts inside it are counts of findings cleared, never a conformance level, because a sample of your pages cannot produce one of those for anybody. Email us your original report and both numbers come back in one reply.

What It Costs

Rapid Audit: $499, up to 10 pages you pick, report in 5 business days. Standard Audit: $1,499, up to 25 pages in 10 business days. Flat rates, no discovery calls, and a real blind screen-reader user on every engagement. Pick your pages. We bring the humans.

Order your audit Run the free scan first

Worth Reading Next

Related on this site

Guides, checklists, tools, and terms that go with this service.