Audit overview
3 categories need attention: Accessibility, and 2 others.
Fix Priority Matrix
5 findingsQuick Wins
2High impact, low effort — start here.
Strategic
3High impact, requires investment.
Easy Improvements
0Small gains, minimal effort.
Nothing in this quadrant — good news.
Deprioritize
0Low impact, high effort — do last.
Nothing in this quadrant — good news.
Screenshots
Top Priorities (5)
'unsafe-eval' found in script source
Unsafe value (unsafe-inline, unsafe-eval) in script-src defeats CSP's main protection — XSS injections can execute again.
'unsafe-inline' found in script source
Unsafe value (unsafe-inline, unsafe-eval) in script-src defeats CSP's main protection — XSS injections can execute again.
1 link(s) with no accessible text
Links with no accessible text (empty <a></a>, image-only no alt, icon-only no aria-label) are unidentifiable to screen readers.
3 control(s) without accessible label
Form controls without labels — assistive tech announces 'edit text' with no context; users can't complete forms.
No <main> landmark found
Without a <main> landmark, screen-reader users can't skip past the navigation to the page content — every page starts with re-reading the menu.
Business case
What fixing the audit's findings is worth -- and what ignoring them keeps costing.
Return on investment
$1,367 investment → $7,982/month returns + USD 150,000 risk avoided
Figures combine localized regulatory fine ceilings, search/conversion value priced against local CPC, and bandwidth waste estimates. Results depend on implementation quality and audience composition. Not legal or financial advice.
Conversion barriers
6 barrier(s) likely increasing bounce by ~30%.
- 3 form field(s) without a labelScreen readers skip unlabeled fields; autofill can't identify them; checkout abandonment spikes→ Associate every input with a visible <label for="…">; add autocomplete attributes
- No viewport meta tagMobile browsers render at desktop width and shrink — text unreadable, tap targets miniature→ Add <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1">
- No Content-Security-Policy headerHigher XSS blast radius — one compromised script can exfiltrate the checkout form→ Ship a reporting-only CSP first, then enforce once violations are clean
- No Open Graph tagsLinks shared on LinkedIn / Slack / Facebook show bare URLs — referral clicks drop→ Add og:title, og:description, og:image, og:url to the page head
- No structured dataNo rich-result eligibility in Google — lower SERP CTR vs competitors with stars and prices→ Add JSON-LD for your page type (Product, Article, FAQPage, LocalBusiness, …)
Preliminary CRO audit — each barrier links to the tab with detailed analysis.
Remediation cost
Start here for the best return on investment
Cost by category
Cost by effort level
Adjust assumptions
Team composition
Multiplier applied to dev hours to reflect QA, design, and PM overhead. Use Dev only for solo work; Full team for projects with formal review processes.
Rates reflect fully-loaded developer cost including overhead
Warning:Cost of inaction
Compliance Risk
$150,000
- No <main> landmark foundADA Title III: USD 25,000 – USD 150,000
- No <nav> landmark foundADA Title III: USD 25,000 – USD 150,000
- Skip navigation link is missing (WCAG 2.4.1)ADA Title III: USD 25,000 – USD 150,000
Bounce-Rate Cost
$7,982 /mo
+29.7pp bounce · ~2,967 lost visitors/mo
CPC: USD 2.69
Bandwidth Waste
$0.06 /mo
797.3 MB/mo × 0.080 USD/GB
- Optimize transfer: save ~80 KB per page loadSaves $0.06/mo
Compliance figures represent the statutory maximum fine for the most severe triggered category, capped per regulation — not the sum of per-finding penalties. Based on published regulatory fine ranges. This is not legal advice.
Unique monthly visitors from your analytics
Purchases, signups, or key actions
Optional — for revenue estimation
more engaged visitors from reduced bounce
Fix 5 critical issues to capture this value
How this is calculated
Based on Google/Deloitte research ("Milliseconds Make Millions") showing a ~7% bounce rate increase per additional second of LCP above the 2.5s "Good" threshold.
Your site's LCP: → estimated after fixes.
These are estimates based on industry research — actual results vary
Your data stays in your browser — nothing is sent to our servers
Lighthouse
Mobile
First Contentful Paint First Contentful Paint — how long until the browser renders the first piece of content. Under 1.8s is good.
2.01 s
Largest Contentful Paint Largest Contentful Paint — how long until the largest visible element loads. Under 2.5s is good.
2.01 s
Total Blocking Time Total Blocking Time — total time the main thread was blocked, preventing user input. Under 200ms is good.
0 ms
Cumulative Layout Shift Cumulative Layout Shift — measures visual stability. How much the page layout shifts during loading. Under 0.1 is good.
0.034
Speed Index Speed Index — how quickly content is visually displayed during load. Under 3.4s is good.
4.93 s
Time to Interactive Time to Interactive — how long until the page is fully interactive and responds to user input. Under 3.8s is good.
2.01 s
Desktop
First Contentful Paint First Contentful Paint — how long until the browser renders the first piece of content. Under 1.8s is good.
378 ms
Largest Contentful Paint Largest Contentful Paint — how long until the largest visible element loads. Under 2.5s is good.
678 ms
Total Blocking Time Total Blocking Time — total time the main thread was blocked, preventing user input. Under 200ms is good.
0 ms
Cumulative Layout Shift Cumulative Layout Shift — measures visual stability. How much the page layout shifts during loading. Under 0.1 is good.
0.119
Speed Index Speed Index — how quickly content is visually displayed during load. Under 3.4s is good.
610 ms
Time to Interactive Time to Interactive — how long until the page is fully interactive and responds to user input. Under 3.8s is good.
678 ms
Categories
8Performance
All checks pass
Security
'unsafe-eval' found in script source
Accessibility
1 link(s) with no accessible text
SEO
All checks pass
Infrastructure
All checks pass
Compliance
All checks pass
Content
All checks pass
Sustainability
All checks pass
How you compare
Where this site stands against peers running the same stack.
Top 10% of HSTS sites score 96+ on Content; you're at 67 — closing this gap is the highest-leverage improvement.
Technology stack
Boomerang, on Java, hosted on Oracle WebLogic Server
Stack Architecture
Akamai mPulse 
Boomerang HSTS 
Oracle Dynamic Monitoring Service Proofpoint 
Java Oracle WebLogic Server All Detected Technologies (7)
Oracle WebLogic Server is a Java-based application server that provides a platform for developing, deploying, and running enterprise-level Java applications.
Java is a class-based, object-oriented programming language that is designed to have as few implementation dependencies as possible.
boomerang is a JavaScript library that measures the page load time experienced by real users, commonly called RUM (Real User Measurement).
HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) informs browsers that the site should only be accessed using HTTPS.
Oracle Dynamic Monitoring Service is a feature of Oracle WebLogic Server that provides real-time monitoring and diagnostic capabilities for Java applications running on the WebLogic Server.
Akamai mPulse is a real user monitoring (RUM) solution that enables companies to monitor, find, and fix website and application performance issues.
Observations (1)
No build tool detected
A framework (Boomerang) was detected but no bundler was identified. The build tool may not be detectable from output patterns, or the site may use the framework's built-in bundler.
Show your score
Drop this badge on your README, marketing site, or status page. It auto-updates every time the audit re-runs and links back to this report.
This badge auto-updates with your latest scan result.
[](https://beavercheck.com/results/9b3efceb-7099-4e43-802e-fcd017dbfb04)<a href="https://beavercheck.com/results/9b3efceb-7099-4e43-802e-fcd017dbfb04"><img src="https://beavercheck.com/badge?url=https%3A%2F%2Fjcp.org" alt="BeaverCheck Score"></a>https://beavercheck.com/badge?url=https%3A%2F%2Fjcp.orgExport & share
Download the audit, share with your team, or grab a fix plan ready to copy into your tracker.
Copies markdown to clipboard
Fix Plan
Three-week roadmap to ship the audit's findings, with one-click copy targets for your tracker.
Three-week fix plan
3 sprints · 14h total → projected B (87)
Sprint 1: Quick Wins
+3Highest ROI — low effort, high impact
- · No <main> landmark found
- · 1 link(s) with no accessible text
Sprint 2: Core Fixes
+1Medium effort, high structural impact
- · 3 control(s) without accessible label
Sprint 3: Strategic Improvements
+5Higher effort, long-term payoff
- · 'unsafe-eval' found in script source
- · 'unsafe-inline' found in script source