Sample report
What is inside the Inkluso accessibility audit report
A section-by-section walkthrough of the report: what each part shows, what the audit finds for you, and where you fill in the rest.
Inkluso scans a website against WCAG 2.1 Level AA and EN 301 549, then writes the results up as an accessibility audit report you can hand to a customer, a procurement team or a market-surveillance authority. The report is the same whether it comes from the free scan of a single page or from a paid multi-page audit. This page walks through a sample so you can read the whole thing before deciding. You can download the full sample PDF in any of the four languages we publish, or scan your own site for free.
Read the full sample report (PDF, 7 pages)
Each file is the same complete report for the fictional shop described below, with every page stamped as a sample. A paid audit is delivered in the same four languages.
The report at a glance
The sample audits a fictional store, https://www.example-shop.example, across two pages. It comes back with a grade of D (41.0 / 100) and 20 issue instances across 6 distinct rules: 6 critical, 9 serious, 5 moderate and 0 minor. The cover states the legal framework it tests against, so the reader knows the basis before the first finding.
| Cover states | In the sample |
|---|---|
| Legal framework | Directive (EU) 2019/882 (European Accessibility Act) |
| Standard | EN 301 549 v3.2.1 (WCAG 2.1 Level AA) |
| Supervisory authority | Product market surveillance per Arts. 19 to 22; services per Art. 23, as designated by each member state |
| Test scope | WCAG 2.1 A/AA, WCAG 2.2 target size, plus best-practice checks |
Summary
A plain-language paragraph that names the site, states the grade, gives the totals (pages scanned, violations, distinct rules, and the split into critical, serious, moderate and minor), and recommends starting with the critical and serious issues. It is the part you can paste into an email.
Severity overview and scanned pages
A table counts rules and instances at each severity, so the breakdown always adds up to the total on the cover. Below it, the scanned-pages section lists every URL that was tested with an OK or error status, and states the colour-contrast coverage precisely: in the sample, 17 of 18 contrast checks were auto-verified and 1 is left for manual review. The report never claims to have checked what it did not.
Detailed issue list
Every rule is tabled under its severity with four columns that make each finding defensible: the WCAG success criterion, the EN 301 549 clause, the legal basis, and the count of instances with the page they were found on. In the sample this is where "Images without alternative text" appears as image-alt, WCAG 1.1.1, EN 301 549 §9.1.1.1, EAA Annex I Section III(c), 4 instances, and where "Insufficient colour contrast" appears as color-contrast, 8 instances. It is the section a reviewer reads to confirm the grade is earned.
Where a jurisdiction is set, the legal-basis column also cites the national law that transposes the EAA: zákon č. 424/2023 Sb. in Czechia, the BFSG in Germany, and the ustawa z 26 kwietnia 2024 r. in Poland. This national-law mapping is the part of the report a generic scanner does not give you.
Detailed findings and fixes
One block per rule, and this is the longest part of the report. Each block explains what the issue is, who it affects, why it matters, and exactly how to fix it, then adds a caveat so nobody over-corrects (for example, that an empty alt="" on a decorative image is correct, not a failure), an effort estimate, and the list of affected elements with their CSS selectors. The sample covers image-alt, label, color-contrast, html-has-lang, target-size and heading-order this way. It is headed as automated first-line guidance, not a legal opinion.
What the audit finds: the real rules, real instance counts and the actual affected elements from your own pages. In a paid audit these are your selectors, not the sample's placeholders.
Visual evidence
Screenshots of representative failing elements, captioned with the rule and the element they show, so a non-technical reader can see what "colour contrast" or "missing alt text" actually looks like on the page. This turns the issue list from an assertion into evidence.
Draft accessibility statement
A ready draft accessibility statement, pre-filled from the findings: a conformance status (in the sample, partially conforms to WCAG 2.1 AA / EN 301 549), the list of non-accessible content with the clause each item violates, an assessment-method note, and the date. It states clearly that it is a draft based on an automated test and does not confirm full legal conformance.
You fill in: your organisation's contact address for accessibility feedback, and any content you know to be non-compliant that an automated scan cannot see. Review it before you publish.
Disclaimer and scan evidence
The closing block carries the disclaimer, states that automated testing typically detects 30 to 40 percent of WCAG requirements, and records the generation timestamp, the scan engine and version (axe-core v4.12.1), and a SHA-256 evidence hash of the results. The hash and timestamp let you show later which version of a page was tested and when, which is what "audit-ready" means in practice.
How the sample was generated
The sample is the output of the same scanner that produces a paid audit, run against one fixed fictional profile: example-shop.example, a small online shop with a home page and a contact page. That profile is deliberately mid-range, so the report shows several severities, a mix of quick fixes and template changes, and a draft statement with real content rather than an empty shell. Every page of the sample is stamped as a sample so it is never mistaken for a licensed audit of a real site. Like a paid report, it ends with the evidence block: timestamp, axe-core version and a SHA-256 hash. In a paid audit that hash is computed over your own scan results.
The free scan grades one page in about a minute. The paid audit crawls several pages and returns the full report as a PDF and a developer JSON export.
Automated accessibility evidence, not legal advice.
Common questions
What does the accessibility audit report contain?
A cover grade out of 100, an executive summary, a severity overview, the list of scanned pages, a detailed issue list mapped to WCAG and EN 301 549, per-rule findings and fixes, visual evidence screenshots, a draft accessibility statement you can adapt, and a disclaimer block with the scan timestamp, the axe-core version and a SHA-256 evidence hash.
Is the sample the same as a paid report?
It has the same structure produced by the same scanner, run against a fictional shop at example-shop.example instead of your site. Every page is stamped as a sample. A paid report is generated from a live crawl of your own pages, so the grade, the findings and the affected elements are your real ones.
Which standards does the report map findings to?
Each finding is mapped to its WCAG 2.1 success criterion and its EN 301 549 v3.2.1 clause, with the legal basis under the European Accessibility Act (Directive (EU) 2019/882). Where a jurisdiction is set, the finding also cites the national transposition: in Czechia zákon č. 424/2023 Sb., in Germany the BFSG, and in Poland the ustawa z 26 kwietnia 2024 r.
How accurate is an automated scan?
Automated testing with axe-core detects roughly 30 to 40 percent of WCAG criteria. The report states this plainly and is written as an audit-readiness record and a fix list, not as a certificate of conformity. A full conformity assessment still requires a manual audit.
Can I use the draft accessibility statement?
Yes. The report includes a draft accessibility statement pre-filled from the scan findings, with a place for your organisation's contact address. It is a starting point for your own statement, not a legal filing, and should be reviewed before you publish it.
What do I get beyond the sample?
A free scan grades your own homepage in about a minute. The paid audit crawls several pages, returns the full report as a PDF and a developer JSON export, and can be extended with monitoring that re-scans on a schedule and alerts you when new issues appear.