SBL-CORR-2026-001: The historical input-probe disclosure overstates coverage. Unload-only transmissions were not reliably recorded. Focus and blur handlers could run, and per-field failures were not fully counted. These reports cannot establish absence of input transmission outside their retained observations.
Incomplete evidence: evidence was cut short before completion (the in-page fingerprint observer could not read every frame, so the fingerprinting evidence is incomplete). Counts for the affected evidence are lower bounds; families that completed carry only their ordinary limits. The evidence receipt states the exact per-visit quality.
What this actually means
cvs.com recorded 100 fewer third-party requests in the visit configured for Brave-list blocking.
SBL-CORR-2026-001: The historical input-probe disclosure overstates coverage. Unload-only transmissions were not reliably recorded. Focus and blur handlers could run, and per-field failures were not fully counted. These reports cannot establish absence of input transmission outside their retained observations.
Bottom line: this visit has signals worth checking
The scan observed signals a non-expert should not have to decode from raw request tables. Some detector evidence was incomplete; each affected detector card states its own retained or unavailable scope, while completed request, cookie, and storage measurements keep their recorded exactness.
The cards below translate the evidence into plain language. Where a measured distribution exists, severity ranks this visit against percentiles from this report's cohort, with each percentile card naming its metric-specific measured-site denominator; otherwise it uses fixed reference thresholds. That cohort is drawn from a curated set of popular, mostly commercial sites, not a random sample of the web. The request log, domain table, and methodology remain below for verification.
275 requests observed in one controlled visit.
What was checked
Page
https://www.cvs.com/
When
Aug 7, 2026, 3:54 AM UTC
Setup
Both visits used headless Chromium in a desktop window of 1440 × 980, with en-US language and UTC time zone. Both ran from a GitHub Actions Ubuntu runner; the network region was not recorded. Neither sent the Global Privacy Control (GPC) signal.
Visits
Two visits configured to differ in Brave-list blocking: No blocking and Brave-list blocking.
Interactions
Typed a made-up test value into 1 form field in each visit, never submitting the form. No scrolling, clicking or consent interaction.
Outcome
Both visits completed, but some evidence in the No blocking visit was cut short.
What these visits could not see
Other pages on this site. Only the requested page's activity was recorded. The privacy policy was opened only to read its text, and none of its activity was recorded.
Signed-in visitors, other browsers and other regions. Both visits were automated, from a fixed en-US / UTC profile. Sites can behave differently for real users, browsers, regions, accounts, or network locations.
Anything that loads only after interaction or consent. Trackers that load that late are not observed, so counts are a lower bound.
Services the catalog does not name. Service labels use a US-biased hand-curated catalog, so regional services may be under-labeled.
Checks with incomplete evidence. In the No blocking visit only: the consent banner, the privacy policy check, fingerprinting, session-recording signals, the typing test, CNAME cloaking and advertising pixels. Each linked card states what was retained.
Worth checking
68 requests matched Brave Shields filter lists
68 requests matched the default filter lists of Brave Shields, the ad and tracker blocker built into the Brave browser, while loading normally.
Computed with Brave's own ad-block engine and default filter lists in classification mode: matched requests were not blocked by the scanner and remain in this report's observed request counts. This is Site Behavior Lab's list-based simulation, which applies every list to the site's own requests too. Brave's default Standard setting skips most of these lists for such requests, so its results can differ. Blocking can also prevent follow-on requests, so this number is neither a measured block count nor what a Brave visit would block.
The hand-curated service catalog separately matched 59 request rows in this visit.Show matched requests
Not flagged
Lower values observed across comparable metrics in the Brave-list blocking attempt
The blocking visit ran with the scanner configured to apply Brave's ad-block engine and default Shields filter lists. It was a simulation in this scanner's browser, not a live Brave-browser visit, and application was not verified. Compared with the unblocked visit, it showed 100 fewer third-party requests, 4 fewer third-party cookies and 58 fewer tracking-related service requests.
Services only seen in the unblocked visit: Google, Microsoft and The Trade Desk, plus 1 other. The blocking visit's engine directly blocked 13 requests; the remaining difference may include follow-on requests that never started once their sources were blocked. A single paired comparison can also reflect run-to-run variance (ad rotation, caching, experiments). Treat this as an observed difference, not a measured blocking rate.
Signed per-metric differences between the two visits; nothing is summed across metrics.Show matched requests
Worth checking
Consent tooling and requests to tracking-service entities appeared before any choice
www.cvs.com sent a request to OneTrust, a consent management platform (the tooling that shows cookie banners). The request log included 5 distinct catalogued tracking-related services before the scanner made any consent choice; 5 companies answered.
A request to the platform's loader proves the page attempted to fetch consent tooling. An observed response supports delivery, but neither fact proves a banner was visibly shown to this scanner. Banner display can vary by region and visit context. The scanner never clicks a banner in this mode, so this report records requests made before the scanner made a consent choice. It does not determine whether any request required consent or whether the site's behavior complied with applicable law. More tracking-service entities or requests may appear after "Accept" than this report captures, so the counts here are lower bounds for users who consent.
Consent platform detected via a request to cdn.cookielaw.org.
Opens the request log at its catalog-matched rows, which include requests to the tracking-related services counted here; this visit never clicked the banner.
Context
Privacy policy read; it made no statement this scan can check
None of the statements this scan knows how to check appear in the policy text. As a result, nothing was compared against this visit's evidence (no reliable company-mention results available). Policy mentions of Google, Tealium and Microsoft, plus 2 others are unknown because this read may have stopped at the scanner's 400,000-character limit. That is a limit of the automated check, not a finding about the site either way.
Statements checked automatically: blanket no-cookie claims, third-party-cookie claims, and combined do-not-sell-or-share claims against advertising-pixel identifier fields. Global Privacy Control claims are never checked against request counts, which cannot show whether selling or sharing stopped. Evidence collection was cut short, so this covers only what was recorded before the cutoff.
Policy at https://www.cvs.com/…/help/…; 0 checkable statements matched; no reliable company-mention results available. Policy mentions of Google, Tealium and Microsoft, plus 2 others are unknown because this read may have stopped at the scanner's 400,000-character limit.
Worth checking
Catalogued service domains recorded responses during this visit
Google, Tealium and Microsoft, plus 2 others appeared in the request log.
A catalog match identifies a maintainer-reviewed service/domain mapping; it does not establish why an individual request occurred, what it carried, or whether profiling happened. Functional catalog labels include advertising, analytics / tag management and tag management / customer data. This scan could not identify 9 of the 28 third-party hosts recorded here, so it cannot say who operates them. That is a limit of identity coverage, not evidence about the site.
118 cross-site requests across 28 third-party hosts.At or above the 75th-percentile mark for third-party domains across the 91 sites measured for this metric.Show third-party requests
Context
Requests were dispatched to catalogued major-platform domains
This visit dispatched requests to catalogued domains for Google and Microsoft.
The domain matches identify services, not the requests' purpose, payload, or whether any profile linking occurred.
The scanner observed cookie metadata whose domain crossed the scanned site's registrable-domain boundary. This report does not retain cookie values or partition keys, so it does not establish whether a cookie was a persistent identifier or could recognize a visitor across sites.
132 cookies total in this report.At or above the 75th-percentile mark for third-party cookies across the 91 sites measured for this metric.
Opens this site's history page, which lists the third-party cookie count each of its retained reports recorded.
Context
Fingerprint-like browser APIs were called
At least 1 retained high-entropy API call appeared in the incomplete instrumentation log.
These calls can be legitimate (charts, graphics, media), so the count is observational, not a severity score, and it excludes Web and Service Workers. Top calls: webgl.getParameter.UNMASKED_RENDERER_WEBGL.
Retained incomplete evidence includes 1 API event record; no exact API-family total is available.
Raw evidence
Open the interactive evidence explorer
The findings above are built from the stored report. Load the request rows, domains, cookies, storage keys, browser signals, visit phases, charts and CSV export when you want to check them; the versioned report JSON is always available below without this interface.
This versioned report is currently retained in the public corpus. Follow the currently retained site history, repeat the same public route when it is available, or request a transparent evidence correction.
cut short: the in-page fingerprint observer could not read every frame, so the fingerprinting evidence is incomplete; derived from status and warnings
Scanner
playwright-chromium
Browser
151.0.7922.34
Redaction
not recorded by this schema
Provenance
Exact build and instrument digests were not recorded by this legacy schema.
Variant visit
Started
Run quality
complete; derived from status and warnings
Scanner
playwright-chromium
Browser
151.0.7922.34
Redaction
not recorded by this schema
Provenance
Exact build and instrument digests were not recorded by this legacy schema.
Recorded provenance is self-reported measurement metadata, not a cryptographic attestation. The public versioned report JSON contains the retained public evidence; see the methodology for interpretation and retention limits.
This report covers what the scanner measures, not everything a site can do. 17 browser surfaces are not instrumented at all (Every page except the one that was scanned; Anything that only loads after scrolling or interaction; Why a request happened, as a causal chain; and 14 others), 3 capabilities are declined by policy, and 3 are outside what any single visit can see. Their absence from this report is not evidence that they did not occur. Read the published coverage boundary.
Detector accuracy is unmeasured. No calibration study currently publishes a precision or recall for the detectors on this page, so a detector match here is a recorded observation, not a calibrated classification. A study has been recorded for pixel-events and does not support a published rate under the current build. How detector accuracy is measured.
Severity percentiles come from this report's exact schema, methodology, tracker-catalog, ServiceRole-taxonomy, metric-contract, producer, and Global Privacy Control cohort. Each percentile card's measured sites are among 99 sites with a successful load across all cohorts. Other methodologies, request-capped visits, and post-choice consent visits are excluded from each card's denominator, while failed or block-page attempts are outside that coverage.
Approved use boundary: This report is investigative evidence that requires independent corroboration. It is not a standalone legal determination and not the sole exhibit in a legal proceeding. Recorded in this project's release manifest on .