Skip to main content

​
Financial calculators QA report

Date: August 6, 2026 Verification update: August 14, 2026

​
Outcome

All 73 calculator pages pass the current calculator QA matrix. The aggregate counts below come from the documented direct TypeScript assertions, server-rendering checks, and Chromium checks used when the checked-in Vitest and Next.js processes timed out locally. They are not counts reported by Vitest. Each calculator was checked for:
  • finite outputs using default, minimum, maximum, and changed assumptions;
  • field labels, required-field validation, invalid-field focus, calculate, reset, and successful scenario sharing;
  • desktop (1440 px) and mobile (390 px) layout without page-level horizontal overflow;
  • one H1, supporting H2 content, unique canonical metadata, keywords, WebApplication/Breadcrumb/FAQ structured data, and shared-scenario noindex,follow behavior;
  • presence in the calculator hub and XML sitemap.
The fallback QA pass exercised 292 formula scenarios, 73 server-rendered route/metadata checks, and 73 Chromium interaction/responsive checks. The checked-in Vitest suite and Vercel preview subsequently passed on PR #3285.

​
Defects fixed during QA

  1. The Interest Rate Calculator could show -99% for a zero or impossible funding scenario. The solver now returns a neutral value defensively, while the form asks the visitor to enter a starting amount or monthly contribution and requires a positive target.
  2. Numeric inputs previously had no general upper bounds, allowing extreme values to overflow JavaScript math and be displayed as a misleading zero. Money, percentage, time, general-number, and IRR list inputs now have explicit safety limits.

​
Calculator-by-calculator status

​
Follow-up recommendations

  • Add a dedicated production Next.js build job to CI. During the original local QA run, the Vitest workers and Next.js process timed out before loading application code, so direct TypeScript assertions, server rendering, and Chromium were used as independent fallbacks. The checked-in Vitest suite and Vercel preview later passed on PR #3285.
  • Add dedicated editorial guides to more high-volume calculator pages over time. Six pages currently have deeper bespoke guides; expanding these carefully would improve topical depth without duplicating search intent.
  • Have a tax or lending subject-matter reviewer periodically verify assumptions tied to changing regulations. Functional QA confirms the implementation behaves consistently, not that a simplified estimate replaces professional advice.