A Second Opinion Audit Checks the Math Before You Spend

What We Keep Finding

Accessibility reports carry an incentive most buyers never think to look at. The firm that wrote the findings very often sells the repair work as well, so every extra finding is extra billable hours and every borderline call leans gently toward the invoice. That does not make the report wrong. It makes it unchecked, and you are about to spend real money on its word.

So here is ours, and you can check it in about four seconds. The audit price is published and fixed before anybody opens your site, so a longer findings list never earns us a cent more. It is printed on the pricing page, it does not move, and it is the same number whether we find three problems or three hundred. And there is no repair work behind it, because we do not sell any, at any price, so there is no second invoice for a long list to be pointing at.

Overstated is a real category with real examples, by the way, not a polite way of saying we disagree. The Level AA focus rule asks that a focused control not be *entirely* hidden, so a control half covered by a sticky header passes, and a report calling it a failure has borrowed the AAA version of the rule. A switched-off control is excepted from both contrast rules, so the grayed-out button somebody flagged was never a contrast failure at all. A link reading "Read more" conforms at AA when the card or the sentence around it names the destination, because the AA rule accepts context and the read-it-alone test is AAA.

Two more of the same shape, and they turn up in almost every scanner-derived report. Duplicate IDs stopped being a WCAG failure when the parsing rule was dropped from WCAG 2.2, and W3C's position is that the real problems there belong to other criteria and should be written up under those. And "the page must have one h1" is not in WCAG anywhere. It is a tool's own best-practice flag wearing a rule number, which is a very different thing to budget against.