Found and fixed 11 accessibility defects the browser reported as healthy — eight footer links still in tab order behind pointer‑events, a scroll timeline clipping the colophon off three pages, and a rule engine running 70 of its 105 rules.

Situation. The site passed its automated accessibility rules. It also had eleven defects that those rules could not see, because each one was a property of how the page rendered rather than of what the markup said — the kind that a validator reports as healthy and a keyboard user hits within seconds.

Task. The defects had to be found, fixed, and written up as a ledger with the rule each one produced, so the class of defect closes rather than the instance.

Action. They fell into three groups. Sizing: a stylesheet keyword used as if it were relative pinned a whole region to sixteen pixels while the body ran up to twenty‑two; a subscript element was used to mean “smaller”; shrinking text lengthened a line until a title ran to ninety‑six characters; and a measured height cap was outgrown by the very text‑spacing override the site claims to support. Focus and clipping: eight footer links stayed in the tab order behind a property that removes pointer interaction and nothing else; an overflow rule created a scroll container nobody wanted; and a scroll‑driven animation, which is simply inactive on a page too short to scroll, permanently clipped the footer off three pages. And two defects in the guards themselves, which are the ones worth naming — every window shape the layout check opened was nine hundred pixels tall, so a landscape phone at 852 by 393 gave seven pixels between two items and no check had ever looked; and the rule engine had been running seventy of its hundred and five rules, so the rule that would have caught the missing landmark was not in the set.

Result. Eleven defects fixed and, more usefully, four rules that outlive them: a guard that tests one axis defends one axis, a rule set that does not contain the rule cannot enforce it, height is a dimension so test it, and prove visibility in pixels rather than in the document. When the layout check was reopened properly it failed a hundred and twenty‑eight times across three languages, including a phone‑sized window where the hero’s closing line sat twenty‑one pixels under the fold.