Understand what each Auditzo review path can include, what it does not include by default, and when a manually scoped evidence audit is needed for deeper testing or supporting files.
This page explains audit boundaries so teams understand the difference between automated reports, manual evidence audits, monitoring, remediation support and WCAG accessibility reviews.
The same website can be reviewed in different ways. Auditzo keeps each path clearly separated so automated visibility is not confused with manual evidence collection or accessibility verification.
Auditzo separates what was reviewed from what was not reviewed, so findings are understood inside the correct context.
Self-generated automated reports provide structured initial visibility, but they are not the same as human-reviewed evidence audits.
Manual Evidence Audits can include deeper testing, raw evidence and consent-state review where those items are included in the agreed scope.
Auditzo provides technical observations and evidence-linked findings. It does not provide legal advice, compliance certification or guarantees.
Scope is not just the website URL. It includes the review path, tested states, evidence depth, deliverables and known exclusions.
The websites, subdomains, public pages, page templates or URLs included in the review.
The user paths, consent states, interaction states or accessibility interactions included in scope.
Whether the output is an automated report, a manual evidence package, screenshots, HAR/network evidence or a scoped findings register.
Testing date, browser, region, profile state, device context and other conditions that can affect observed behavior.
Whether the review is privacy/tracking-oriented, consent-state-oriented, remediation-oriented, monitoring-oriented or WCAG accessibility-oriented.
Known boundaries such as untested pages, blocked regions, login-only areas, third-party platform limits or legal conclusions.
Automated reports, manual evidence audits, monitoring, remediation and WCAG audits are not interchangeable. Each path has a different purpose and evidence depth.
A quick no-interaction scan that helps teams see initial website privacy and tracking signals.
A self-generated automated report for teams that need a clearer report format than the free scan.
A self-generated automated report with deeper structured visibility into the initial website state.
A manually scoped review for teams that need deeper technical evidence, consent-state comparison or supporting files.
A monitoring path for teams that want to track meaningful changes in website privacy and tracking signals over time.
A remediation support path for teams that need help understanding and fixing tracking, consent, cookie or third-party script issues.
A custom path for multi-domain, urgent, legal-support, enterprise or special-format evidence needs.
A WCAG-oriented accessibility review with human verification, evidence, affected components and remediation guidance.
This is the most important distinction on the page. Automated reports are useful for structured visibility. Manual Evidence Audits are used when human review, consent-state testing, screenshots or raw evidence files are needed.
Explore Manual Evidence Audit| Capability | Automated Reports | Manual Evidence Audit | WCAG Audit |
|---|---|---|---|
| Initial website privacy visibility | Yes | Yes, where relevant | Not the primary purpose |
| Human review | No | Yes | Yes |
| Consent Accept / Decline comparison | No | Yes, where scoped | Not included unless separately scoped |
| Screenshots | Report visuals only where available | Yes, where scoped | Yes, where relevant |
| HAR / network evidence handoff | No raw evidence handoff | Yes, where scoped | Usually not relevant |
| Cookie and storage comparisons | Initial-state observations | Yes, where scoped | Not the primary purpose |
| WCAG-oriented issue mapping | No | No, unless accessibility is scoped | Yes |
| Legal advice or certification | No | No | No |
“Where scoped” means the item must be included in the agreed review path, proposal, order or custom engagement terms.
Auditzo reports are designed for technical review and remediation planning. They should not be treated as legal conclusions or compliance certifications.
These items can often be reviewed, but only when they are specifically included in the selected report path or manually agreed scope.
Manual Evidence Audits work best when the expected pages, journeys, consent states and evidence outputs are clear before testing begins.
Share the domain, priority pages, templates, forms, checkout flows or journeys that matter most.
Tell us whether Accept, Decline, preference-center or regional consent behavior needs review.
Provide test credentials, VPN needs, staging links or allowed test windows when non-public areas are in scope.
Confirm whether you need screenshots, HAR/network evidence, request notes, cookie/storage comparisons or a raw evidence handoff.
Clarify whether the report is for internal review, developer remediation, agency handoff, privacy team review or legal-support discussion.
Share deadlines, urgent risk areas, launch dates, remediation windows or priority findings that need faster review.
The right report path depends on whether you need quick visibility, internal review, raw evidence, consent-state comparison, remediation, monitoring or accessibility verification.
Compare Pricing and Audit PathsThese pages explain methodology, automated reports, manual evidence audits, pricing, sample outputs and WCAG accessibility review.
See how Auditzo defines scope, captures evidence, verifies findings and documents limitations.
Review the self-generated automated detailed report path and what it is designed to show.
Explore human-reviewed privacy evidence work with consent-state, network, cookie and storage evidence where scoped.
Compare automated reports, manual evidence audits, remediation and monitoring options.
Preview how privacy and tracking findings may be structured in an Auditzo report.
Review Auditzo’s human-reviewed accessibility audit path with evidence and remediation guidance.
Common questions about automated reports, manual evidence audits, raw evidence files, WCAG reviews and legal boundaries.
Start with an automated report for quick visibility, or request a Manual Evidence Audit when you need human-reviewed evidence, consent-state testing, screenshots or raw supporting files within an agreed scope.
Auditzo provides technical evidence and observations for review. It does not provide legal advice, compliance certification or guarantees.