Score inputs
- Check result
- Weight
- Affected scope
- Severity
- Confidence
- Category
- Configured exclusions
- Run completeness
Comparison rules
- Compare the same site and environment
- Preserve methodology version
- Identify scope changes
- Separate new checks from regressions
- Do not hide critical findings inside a high average
Display rules
Every summary should link to the checks and findings that produced it. A category can remain high while containing one serious issue; the report must preserve that distinction.
Evidence standard
- State the authorization, scope, exclusions, environment, timing, and methodology version for how technical health scoring should work.
- Automated findings separated from issues requiring manual human evaluation.
- Distinguish direct observation, calculated result, heuristic, inference, and manual judgment.
- Preserve failed, incomplete, blocked, and uncertain checks instead of silently dropping them.
Interpretation and decision record
A methodology should help reviewers reach the same bounded conclusion from the same evidence. It should not imply certainty beyond the assessed scope. Record the finding, limitation, owner, decision, remediation, and the verification required to remove barriers from important user tasks and make accessibility part of routine website operations.
Decision and verification record
Scope
Name the website, environment, URLs, entities, templates, or user journeys included in the how technical health scoring should work decision.
Decision
Record the chosen action, owner, priority, dependencies, approval, and the evidence that justified it.
Verification
Repeat automated checks, complete the relevant manual task, and record the browser and assistive-technology context.
Turn how technical health scoring should work into an accountable record.
A reproducible how technical health scoring should work assessment record with scope, evidence, limitations, and verification rules.