Reports describe problems. We remove them.
The accessibility industry is organised around finding issues. Your statement shows the finding is already done. Our engagements are organised around the harder half: fixing, evidencing, and standing behind the result.
Every instance, not a sample
An audit typically samples a handful of pages. A scanner reports whatever it crawled this week. Neither answers the question a web manager actually has: how big is this, and where exactly?
We sweep the full template estate for each failing criterion your statement names — using automated tooling, including AI-assisted analysis, to do the exhaustive part. Then every single result is verified by a person before it enters the workplan. Tool output is a lead, never a conclusion: our own quality process regularly discards false positives that automated checks alone would have reported as failures.
The practical effect: one template-level fix frequently clears dozens or hundreds of listed instances at once. Knowing the full count before work starts is what makes a fixed scope — and a fixed fee — honest.
Remediation by the route your platform allows
Public-sector websites sit on very different foundations, and pretending otherwise is where remediation projects fail. We scope against the reality:
- Open platforms (for example, LocalGov Drupal): fixes are delivered as peer-reviewable code changes through your normal contribution process, with automated tests attached.
- Supplier platforms where your team cannot alter code: content-level failures — alt text, document structure, headings, link text — are remediated through an editor account you grant; structural failures are written up as a precise, vendor-ready specification your supplier can implement.
- Document estates: PDFs and other documents are restructured to be genuinely machine-readable, not merely re-saved.
Which route applies to which failure is agreed in writing before an engagement is confirmed — including anything that is not ours to fix. You will never pay for work we cannot deliver.
The deliverable is a signed retest
Every engagement ends with a before-and-after retest of each named WCAG criterion, evidenced and signed. It serves three purposes at once:
- It is the document you hand to the Government Digital Service if your site is sampled.
- It is the factual basis for updating your accessibility statement — a duty in its own right.
- It is accountability. Tools cannot be answerable for a compliance position; a named signatory can. That signature is, in the end, what you are buying.
A note on honesty, because it is part of the method. We are open about using automated and AI-assisted tooling — it is why full-estate coverage is affordable. We are equally clear that no output reaches you without human verification, and no retest is signed by anyone who has not personally checked it.
Sized for how public bodies actually buy
Engagements are fixed-fee against a written scope, and deliberately sized so that a first engagement sits within routine authorisation — no framework, no tender exercise, no procurement project. Repeat work is scoped the same way: per template set, per document backlog, or as a periodic retest that keeps your statement current.
We would rather win a second engagement by the quality of the first than by the size of either.