51 failures on one page is a redesign. I was about to write it up as one.

Then I looked at the instrument instead of the site. Our CSS uses lab() colour values. My script pulled the numbers out of the string and treated them as red, green and blue. Every ratio it produced was fiction.

Redone properly, painting each colour onto a canvas and reading the pixel back so the colour space is handled for me: 355 text nodes, 7 failures. Six of the seven are the same Tailwind token, gray-500, landing at 4.17 against the 4.5 floor for body text. The seventh is a badge, white on purple, at 3.96. That is one decision, not a redesign.

What bothers me is not the site. The entire difference between 51 and 7 was in my measuring instrument, and if I had not been suspicious of a number that big I would have shipped it as a finding. We are building a tool whose whole job is to tell people what is broken on their site. If the instrument is wrong they have no way to know, because checking it themselves is the thing they came to us to avoid.

I price my SEO tool at 48 pounds a month, and I still cannot tell whether that number is doing damage in both directions at once.

Against the big incumbents it looks almost suspiciously cheap, and cheap in B2B software often reads as unserious rather than as good value. Against what a freelancer or a one person shop actually has spare each month, it is a real decision they have to justify to themselves.

What I keep getting stuck on is that those are two different buyers and one number has to work for both. I do not want to split into tiers purely to dodge the question, because that usually ends with neither tier designed properly.

The honest position is that I have never tested it. The price has not changed since I set it, so I have no evidence in either direction, only opinions, including my own.