By John Cookie · Published 4 October 2026
See how a cookie consent finding can move from an observation to a specific developer action and a repeatable retest.
Download the sample report and worksheet
See how a Consent Mode v2 finding is documented, prioritised and turned into a developer action and retest.
Download the illustrative sample audit report (PDF, 4 pages)
PDF version 24 October 2026. Fictional findings and example evidence references only; no real website test results are included. No sign-up required.
Start your own findings record
A blank, editable text template for recording your test conditions, evidence, findings and retest actions. Open it in your text editor or paste it into your project notes.
Download the blank audit worksheet (TXT)Worksheet version 4 October 2026. Blank fields are not a pass; record what was tested and what remains unknown.
1. Scope and environment
Example website: example.com. Example scope: homepage, one campaign landing page and one enquiry journey. Record the actual URLs, dates, browsers, region, CMP version and published tag-manager version in a commissioned report. Agree the permitted test actions and use test details for forms.
Separate a public visibility review from a technical audit. Public observations can describe buttons, policy links and visible script references. Storage, network activity and consent transitions require their own evidence. Configuration access may be needed to trace the cause.
2. A developer-ready finding
F-01: Advertising consent update does not match the selected choice
Illustrative observation: the visitor selects analytics only. The example consent output records advertising storage as granted. This example is an integration mismatch to investigate, not a legal verdict.
- Reproduction
- Start with a fresh stored-choice state, open the agreed landing page, select analytics only, then inspect the latest consent event.
- Evidence
- E-01: dated choice screenshot. E-02: consent event and recorded values. E-03: relevant storage and request comparison. These are example evidence identifiers; no files are attached.
- Expected outcome
- The advertising signal follows the visitor’s separate advertising choice and the agreed consent design.
- Suggested owner
- Developer or GTM/CMP administrator responsible for the integration.
- Action
- Inspect category mapping and competing installations. Correct the confirmed cause in a controlled deployment.
- Retest
- Repeat rejection, analytics-only, full acceptance and withdrawal, then navigate to a second agreed URL.
3. Priorities and open questions
| ID | Priority | Action | Closure evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| F-01 | High | Investigate the choice-to-signal mismatch | Recorded transitions match each separate choice |
| F-02 | Medium | Reconcile an outdated policy inventory with confirmed tools | Reviewed declaration and source inventory |
| Q-01 | Open question | Confirm whether server-side forwarding is in scope | Configuration access or explicit scope exclusion |
Priority reflects the practical effect and urgency within the agreed review, not a numerical regulatory risk score. “Not tested” remains visible until evidence supports a finding. Each closed item should point to the deployed change and dated retest.
4. What to expect from a scoped audit
The Google Consent Mode audit service describes its current scope, fee and deliverables, including a PDF findings report and walkthrough. The exact report content depends on the website and agreed tests; this page is an example format rather than a promise that these fictional issues will be found.
Useful findings include reproduction steps, evidence, impact, an owner, a recommended next action and acceptance criteria. Implementation work should be agreed separately. A report cannot guarantee that every tag, page, geography or future deployment has been tested.
5. Handling evidence and limitations
Keep customer details, account identifiers and sensitive request payloads out of public examples. Record capture conditions, especially whether the browser was reset. Distinguish a visible banner screenshot from proof of tag behaviour. See how we review cookie banners and the published public website reviews for the difference in scope.
Want this level of clarity for your website? Discuss a scoped review. Share your public URL and main concern; do not send passwords in the enquiry.
Practical website guidance. Tests are limited to the conditions recorded; this is not legal advice or formal compliance certification.