What uptime monitoring reports
One request to the homepage, every few minutes.
True. Also true while every order on the site is failing.
The whole system is built around one idea: a finding is only worth sending if the business can check it themselves. Everything below exists to make that true.
One request to the homepage, every few minutes.
True. Also true while every order on the site is failing.
The commercial routes, walked in order, then verified.
A named page, a named failure, and proof it wasn't a one-off.
Illustrative example on a fictional domain.
The process
The stages below are ordered by cost: the cheap checks run first and discard the bulk of the queue, so the expensive verification work only ever runs on things that already look real.
We build and maintain a queue of publicly listed UK business websites — the same ones a customer would find through an ordinary search. Nothing private, purchased or scraped from behind a login is involved.
We follow the routes that matter commercially — product and service pages, baskets, checkout steps, booking links, contact and enquiry paths — in the same order a prospective customer would. Pages are loaded in a real browser so that JavaScript-driven journeys behave the way they do for a visitor.
We browse. We never submit. No form is sent, no order is placed and no booking is made.
This is the stage that decides whether FaultFound is useful or annoying. A single bad response proves nothing — servers hiccup, deployments happen, bot protection blocks automated traffic. So every candidate fault has to survive being checked again after a delay, and has to reproduce independently in a browser.
Anything that clears on the re-check is discarded silently. You never hear about it, which is the point.
A confirmed fault gets two independent scores. Severity asks how much this affects a customer trying to do business with you — a failed checkout outranks a broken link to an old blog post. Confidence asks how certain we are that it is real and reproducible.
We keep them apart on purpose. Collapsing them into one number is how audits end up claiming certainty they do not have.
We record the exact URL, the HTTP status and response headers, the times of each observation, and what the browser did when it loaded the page. That record is the deliverable — it is what lets you check our work instead of taking our word for it.
Only findings that survive every stage above result in contact. The business gets a private link to a report about its own website: what we found, where, what we saw, how sure we are, and what it would cost to have it diagnosed and repaired.
The report is unlisted and not indexed by search engines. Reading it costs nothing and creates no account.
Your decision, made with the evidence already in front of you. If the finding is useful, the repair pack gives you the diagnosis, the likely root cause, the implementation steps and a verification checklist — written so your own developer or agency can act on it directly.
If it isn't useful, or you've already fixed it, you owe us nothing and there is nothing to cancel.
Scope and boundaries
FaultFound is not a security scanner and does not behave like one. We look at public pages, the way a customer would.
Being wrong is expensive
An automated audit that cries wolf gets deleted, and deserves to be. Every threshold in FaultFound exists because a false positive costs you time and costs us the only asset we have.
A fault must reproduce on a later, separate check before it can become a finding.
A direct request and a real browser both have to see the same failure.
Being challenged by a firewall says something about us, not about your website.
A single 5xx during a deployment is normal. We wait, then look again.
A broken checkout and a broken link to an old post are not the same problem.
Confidence is shown as a number on your report, including when it is low.
The sample report is built from demonstration data on a fictional domain, but its structure is identical to a real one.