We scan our own site
An accessibility vendor whose own site fails a scan is a joke. Here is ours, run on our engine, in full.
0 WCAG violations · 0 best-practice findings
Across 8 pages, scanned 2026-07-30 by our audit engine (GARGANTUA v0.2.0) with axe-core 4.12.1, IBM Equal Access 4.0.29, and a screen-reader pass.
The run
| Measure | Result |
|---|---|
| Pages scanned | 8 |
| Pages that failed to scan | 0 |
| WCAG failures — critical | 0 |
| WCAG failures — serious | 0 |
| WCAG failures — moderate | 0 |
| WCAG failures — minor | 0 |
| WCAG failures — total | 0 |
| Best-practice findings | 0 |
| Findings needing human review | 42 |
What "needs human review" means here
The engine records findings it cannot decide rather than guessing. 42 on this run are items no rule can settle — whether a link's text makes sense out of context, whether a heading describes what follows. They are not failures, and they are not passes. They are the part a person has to look at, and we have.
Honest limits of this page
Zero findings is the floor, not a certificate. It means no machine-decidable failure remains, on the pages listed, on that date, with those engine versions. It does not mean this site is accessible to everyone — we have not run a panel of disabled users, and we will not imply we have. If something here fails you, tell us.
This page is regenerated whenever the site changes, by pnpm validate:site, which fails the build on any WCAG violation or best-practice finding.