Useful explanations. Checkable claims.

The guides focus on how a measurement is obtained, what it establishes and where its interpretation ends. A page should leave you better equipped to investigate the next issue, rather than encourage you to trust a coloured badge.

Sources and scope

Technical claims are tied to primary protocol documentation, browser API references or provider documentation where possible. We distinguish implementation behaviour from general standards. For example, a browser may expose less information than an API permits, and a resolver’s validation assertion is different from a full chain validation run by this application.

Examples and authorship

Examples use reserved domains, sample configurations and invented token claims. They are not evidence of a real organisation’s security posture. Articles are written and maintained by David Warner for BrowserInspect. The site does not claim certifications or an independent security audit it has not obtained.

Revisions

When the implementation or relevant browser behaviour changes, its guide should be reviewed alongside it. A correction should explain the changed behaviour and avoid retaining a claim that the tool no longer supports. Reproducible reports are more useful than an unexplained screenshot or an overall score.

Commercial independence

The included site contains no sponsored rankings, affiliate placements, advertising integrations or paid security verdicts. If that changes, commercial relationships and resulting data handling must be disclosed before those features are enabled.