Panel recruitment, three-stream capture (voice, clicks, facial reactions), AI synthesis, the severity rubric, and WCAG mapping. Written for any design lead or researcher to audit.
Verified UK adults across four neurodivergent profiles: ADHD, dyslexia, autism, and dyspraxia. Each tester completes identity verification, a mental-capacity quiz that confirms they understand the engagement, and a device-and-experience profile we use to match them to your audience. Testers are paid an effective rate of £24 per hour. We do not use synthetic personas, geographically arbitraged labour, or undisclosed crowdsourcing.
▸Identity verified via third-party provider before any work begins
▸Mental-capacity quiz is pass-or-fail, not advisory
▸ND status optionally self-verified during onboarding
▸Compensation transparent up front, paid through Stripe Connect
02
Recording stack
Three streams captured simultaneously per session, in the tester's own environment via a Chrome extension: behavioural data (clicks, scrolls, keystrokes, navigation), self-report (voice commentary), and physiological signal (facial reactions). The streams are correlated by an analysis layer to produce ranked findings. Testers approve their own session notes before anything reaches the client.
▸Behavioural events recorded with millisecond precision
▸Voice commentary opt-in, captured via Web Speech API in-browser
▸Facial reactions processed locally where possible, with explicit consent
▸Tester confirmation gate: nothing is shipped without the tester's approval
03
Severity rubric
Findings are ranked by behavioural impact, not just by tester opinion. The rubric is fixed and the same rubric is used in every engagement, so severity is comparable across studies and over time.
▸Critical: blocks the journey for ≥30% of the cohort, or causes abandonment in 2+ profiles
▸High: causes substantial dwell-time inflation or task-failure for 15–29% of the cohort
▸Medium: friction observed in 5–14% of the cohort, recoverable with effort
▸Low: <5%, single-profile, or surfaced via voice but not behavioural data
04
WCAG mapping
Every finding that touches an accessibility-relevant pattern is mapped to a WCAG 2.2 success criterion. We map only the criteria that cognitive accessibility research can legitimately observe. The criteria that depend on assistive-technology testing (screen readers, magnifiers, switch devices) are listed as out-of-scope in every report and require a separate provider.
▸Explicitly out of scope: 1.1.1 alt-text accuracy, 1.3.5/6, 2.1.x keyboard-only paths, 2.5.x pointer alternatives, 4.1.2 Name/Role/Value (AT-dependent)
▸Each finding includes the criterion, the evidence type, and the cohort split
▸Reports list the out-of-scope criteria so nothing is implied by omission
05
A/B rounds protocol
An engagement does not stop at the first report. Each journey is retested across rounds while your engineers ship fixes. The engagement signs off when one of three conditions is met: task-success across all profiles plateaus, the target you set on the kickoff call is met, or the contracted round budget is reached. Whichever comes first is documented in the close-out.
▸Round 1 establishes baseline; rounds 2–N retest specific fixes
▸Per-round delta calculated against baseline cohort, not just round-on-round
▸Plateau defined as: no profile gains more than 4 percentage points across two consecutive rounds
▸Sign-off documented in the remediation log with the round and the delta that closed each finding
The honest scope
What this engagement covers, and what it does not
Cognitive accessibility is one part of a complete accessibility programme. We are deliberately specialised in that part. The two columns below are not a feature wishlist; they are how we describe the offer in proposals and on procurement calls.
In scope
Cognitive friction in journeys (ambiguity, overload, sludge)
Behavioural evidence per ND profile
Task-success and abandonment metrics with cohort splits
Mapping to the WCAG criteria cognitive issues touch
Iterative retesting until measurable improvement
Methodology trail suitable for procurement audit
Out of scope (you need this elsewhere)
Screen-reader, magnifier, or switch-device testing
Keyboard-only navigation conformance
Full WCAG 2.2 AA conformance certification
EAA, Section 508, or EN 301 549 conformance reports
Authoring an accessibility statement on your behalf
Verification of nuanced AT-dependent criteria (e.g. 4.1.2)
How this fits alongside your existing research
OpenScouter is the behavioural research layer your stack is missing. We slot in alongside the tools your team already uses, not instead of them. Here is how we describe the rest of the stack on a kickoff call.
Generalist UX research platforms
Maze and UserTesting are excellent for high-volume prototype testing on a generalist panel. OpenScouter sits alongside them: we add three-stream behavioural capture and a recruited ND panel for the studies where cognitive friction matters most.
Live-site analytics
Hotjar shows you what users do across all live traffic. OpenScouter shows you why for the journeys that matter, with voice and facial signal from a recruited research panel. Use both, not one or the other.
Research repositories
Dovetail and similar tools organise the research your team has already done. OpenScouter sits upstream of them: we conduct the behavioural research and produce structured reports your team can drop into Dovetail for synthesis.
In-house moderated research
Your in-house researchers are best placed to run discovery interviews and bespoke moderated studies. OpenScouter handles panel-led behavioural validation and the ND lens, freeing your team to focus on strategy and recommendations.
Specialist AT-testing providers
Run dedicated screen-reader, keyboard-only, and switch-device evaluations against the criteria we leave out of scope. Examples: AbilityNet, Hassell Inclusion, Deque consultancy.
Automated scanners
Catch structural issues (contrast, missing alt, malformed ARIA). Useful as a continuous check between human evaluations. Examples: axe DevTools, WAVE, IBM Equal Access.
Have a procurement question this page does not answer?
We will share a redacted evidence pack from a comparable engagement under NDA, including the methodology appendix as it ships in production reports.
