SAMPLE — illustrative report format. Not a verified audit of a real uploaded font file.
Sample report
Aperture Sans Regular
aperture-sans-regular.woff2 · WOFF2 · Typography Standard 2.0 · 7/16/2026, 3:52:34 AM
OK
28
Warnings
2
Recommended below threshold
2
Non-blocking recommended checks
Mandatory failures
0
Summary
No mandatory TS 2.0 gates failed. Two non-blocking findings should be reviewed before deployment.
Category scores
Legibility
92 / 100
9 OK · 1 warning · 0 recommended below threshold
- Machine recognition at 12px above threshold
Character Support
94 / 100
4 OK · 1 warning · 0 recommended below threshold
- Basic Latin complete
Technical Quality
100 / 100
6 OK · 0 warnings · 0 recommended below threshold
- WOFF2 present
Production Readiness
90 / 100
5 OK · 0 warnings · 2 recommended below threshold
- Web embedding declared
Deployment considerations
Deployment considerations derived from measured TS 2.0 results. Not approval for a specific use case.
| Context | Finding | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Large display / campaign headlines | Review non-blocking findings | TS 2.0 does not approve creative use. Large sizes may reduce some small-size legibility risks measured in this report. |
| Body text / editorial | Review non-blocking findings | Confirm reading size, line length, and spacing in the finished layout (WCAG implementation). |
| Product UI / dense interfaces | Review non-blocking findings | Small UI sizes are where ambiguity and recognition findings matter most. Review evidence before deployment. |
| Web embedding | Review non-blocking findings | Confirm payload size, embedding permissions, and license metadata before deployment. |
| Multilingual / locale rollout | Insufficient data | Character coverage is measured for published Latin-oriented sets. Validate target locales separately. |
Requirements
| Requirement | Category | Status | Result | Threshold | Severity | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TS2-READ-004 Recognition at 12px | legibility | OK | 84% | 80% | recommended | |
| TS2-AMB-001 i/l/1 Distinction | legibility | OK | 82% | 75% | mandatory | |
| TS2-AMB-003 rn/m Distinction | legibility | Warning | 68% | 70% | recommended | |
| TS2-COV-001 Basic Latin Coverage | character_support | OK | 100% | 95% | mandatory | |
| TS2-DEP-002 File Size Efficiency | production_readiness | Fail | 520KB | 500KB | recommended |
Evidence
Overall score
- Method
- Weighted pillar average across Typography Standard requirements.
- Result
- 92 / 100
- Decision relevance
- Single 0–100 score for comparing files and tracking retests.
Mandatory gates
- Method
- Critical requirements must pass or certification is blocked.
- Result
- 0 mandatory failure(s)
- Decision relevance
- Prevents high average scores from masking blocking defects.
File integrity
- Method
- SHA-256 hash of the analyzed font bytes.
- Result
- demo-hash
- Decision relevance
- Binds the report to the exact tested file without storing the font.
Format and family
- Method
- Parsed from upload metadata and font tables.
- Result
- Aperture Sans Regular · WOFF2 · 612 glyphs
- Decision relevance
- Confirms the tested asset identity for handoff and verification.
Requirement evidence (warnings and failures)
TS2-AMB-003
rn/m Distinction
rn/m separation is below the recommended threshold at small sizes.
Measured: 68% · Threshold: 70%
TS2-DEP-002
File Size Efficiency
WOFF2 payload exceeds the recommended efficiency threshold.
Measured: 520KB · Threshold: 500KB
Technical metadata
- Family name
- Aperture Sans
- Format
- WOFF2
- Standard version
- 2.0
Family map
Aperture Sans Regular · styles detected from this upload. Upload a ZIP of family files to expand the weight map.
- ThinNot in this file
- Extra LightNot in this file
- LightNot in this file
- RegularPresent
- MediumNot in this file
- SemiboldNot in this file
- BoldNot in this file
- Extra BoldNot in this file
- BlackNot in this file
Detected: Regular · Compare family members on Compare.
Remediation priorities
- · Review rn/m separation before dense UI text below 12px.
- · Reduce WOFF2 payload below 500KB for production web delivery.
Certification
File hash: demo-hash · Preview until published
Scores reflect measured file, rendering, and metadata evidence — not editorial judgment. Mandatory failures block certification even when the overall score is high. Font file bytes are deleted after analysis; the report retains measured results and a cryptographic file hash.