Six phases. Zero surprises.
Our method is built on one rule from the flight line: you don't sign off on what you haven't inspected. Every finding is tied to something we observed, counted, or tested, rated on a published scale, and reviewed with you before it becomes final. The phases are the same for operations and accessibility work. What changes is how we gather the evidence.
-
Scoping
We agree on what's in scope (sites, processes, inventory locations, websites, apps, documents), what it's measured against (your SOPs and KPIs, WCAG, Section 508), and your deadline. You get a fixed-scope, fixed-price proposal before work starts.
Output: signed scope and plan
-
Data request & planning
Operations: we request system inventory records, KPIs, SOPs, and recent cycle count results, and set a sampling plan for which locations and items we'll verify. Accessibility: we run automated rule checks across the pages and screens in scope to find where to look closer. Automated tools find only part of what WCAG covers, so this is a starting point, not the result.
Output: data received and a written test or sampling plan
-
Fieldwork & testing
Operations: on site, we observe each process from receiving through shipping, verify the inventory sample against your records, and log every observation with the date, location, and how it was verified. Accessibility: we work through each key path the way people with disabilities do: keyboard only, with a screen reader (NVDA on Windows, VoiceOver on Mac and iOS), zoomed to 200 and 400 percent, and with attention to forms, error messages, focus order, and content that changes on the page.
Output: an evidence log behind every finding
-
Findings review with you
We walk every finding with your team before anything is final. If you have context we didn't, like a fix already in progress, we note it. Facts can be corrected; conclusions follow the evidence. A finding you haven't seen before the final report is a failure of process.
Output: reviewed draft findings
-
Final report & briefing
You get a report with findings ranked by impact, the evidence and method behind each one, and a summary for leadership. For SaaS vendors who ordered one, a VPAT® / ACR written from our results. We brief the people who need to hear it.
Output: final report, leadership summary, ACR where ordered
-
Independent follow-up
When you've made changes with whoever you choose, book a follow-up. We re-check the original findings and report what's resolved and what's still open.
Output: follow-up report and updated ACR where applicable
Rated by impact.
| Rating | Operations findings | Accessibility findings |
|---|---|---|
| Critical | Large, ongoing cost or risk, such as inventory records the site can't rely on. | Blocks some users from finishing a key task, with no workaround. |
| High | Significant cost or delay in a core process. | Makes a key task very hard, or blocks a secondary task. |
| Medium | Real waste or rework with a workaround in place. | Causes real difficulty or confusion, but a workaround exists. |
| Low | A gap from the SOP or standard with limited cost. | Fails a requirement with limited effect on completing tasks. |
A widget is not an assessment.
Overlay tools add a toolbar or script on top of a site. The underlying code that screen readers and keyboards rely on stays the same, which is where most of the problems we find live.
- Automated detection covers only part of WCAG. Many problems need a person to find them.
- Disability advocates and many assistive technology users have publicly opposed overlays.
- In 2025 the Federal Trade Commission finalized an order against an overlay vendor over claims that its product made websites compliant.
Start with a scoping call.
Thirty minutes to confirm scope, what it's measured against, and your deadline. You'll leave with a fixed-scope proposal.