container audit

GTM-TMFQ37C

79 tags, 4 custom scripts, 4 third-party hosts — an ordinary container, near the middle of what we measure (median: 39 tags, 4 custom scripts).

4 custom HTML tags carrying 3 KB of JavaScript. This runs on every page the container loads on.
4 third-party hosts reachable from its tags.

Tags79

Custom scripts4

Third parties4

Delivered510 KB

Versions110

What we observed

A real browser loaded disabilitytalent.org a month ago and recorded every request it made. This is what happened, as distinct from what the container is configured to do. It is one page load — anything that fires only deeper in the site did not fire here.

Container loaded from googletagmanager.com — Google

Measurement sent to google-analytics.com — Google

Consent a consent banner was present and we accepted it. 7 measurement hits left the page before it was granted, carrying a client id (whether that is permitted depends on jurisdiction, and this was not a European visit). no new hosts appeared after granting — either the tags are ungated, or they fire regardless and record the decision. Google recorded gcs=G111 (all granted). 5 advertising hosts were contacted before anything was granted.

Third parties contacted 25 hosts — pagead2.googlesyndication.com, static.wixstatic.com, assets.apollo.io, frog.wix.com, panorama.wixapps.net, static.parastorage.com, browser.sentry-cdn.com, siteassets.parastorage.com, and 17 more

dataLayer events seen gtm.js, gtm.dom, gtm.load, Pageview, page_view, gtm.click, gtm.linkClick

Where the data goes

Not observed — on the page we loaded, measurement went to Google and nowhere else. observed on disabilitytalent.org More info »

Findings

Ordered by consequence. review has a concrete cost when it bites; info is real but depends on your setup. Seen is how common it is across the containers we have measured — reported separately on purpose, because common and harmless are different claims.

reviewdocument.write (1)

1 piece of custom code call document.write.

Whydocument.write blocks the HTML parser while it runs, and browsers ignore it entirely once the page has finished parsing — so an async-loaded tag using it can silently do nothing.

CheckIf these tags fire on page load they are costing render time; if they fire later they may not be working at all. Worth confirming the tag still does what it was added to do.

Seenseen in 18.4% of 46,522 containers measured

reviewNo consent signal in the container (1)

Nothing in this container sets, reads, or gates on a consent state.

WhyThe container itself neither sets a Consent Mode default, holds any tag back for consent, nor references a known consent platform. Either enforcement lives entirely outside GTM — where it cannot be audited from here — or tags fire regardless of what a visitor chose.

CheckIf a consent platform blocks scripts before GTM loads, this is fine — confirm that is actually the case. If not, tags are firing on a choice nobody recorded.

Seenseen in 52.1% of 46,522 containers measured

Third parties it can reach

Each host is a party that can execute code or receive data in a visitor's browser. Follow one to see who else loads it. More info »

www.googleadservices.com ×41www.google-analytics.com ×13click.appcast.io ×3 script.google.com ×2

Detected on

Sites observed loading this container. A container used across many hosts is a shared template; one on a single host is a bespoke build. Follow a site to see every container it loads.

disabilitytalent.org

What this audit describes

Containers change. These findings describe one specific artifact, and you can re-fetch it to check this reading.

Container	`GTM-TMFQ37C`
Published version	`110` — the identity of this configuration. It changes only when someone publishes.
Read at	2026-08-23 18:11:25 UTC (a month ago)
Source	`https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id=GTM-TMFQ37C`
Body checksum	`a17e36d2345340bdfe8f4022ca7e06d5c20980688d099c2ecf0e918c748edeb4` Evidence of the exact bytes we read, not an identity: Google varies the response per request, so re-fetching an unchanged container yields a different checksum. Compare the published version instead.

Re-audit

This reading is from a month ago. A container can be republished at any time, and nothing here updates on its own — a fresh read is the only way to know whether it still says this. Running it again replaces this page in place, so the link keeps working.

Re-audit GTM-TMFQ37C

Check another container

Put this container under version control. Tagora exports it to a repository you own, so every change arrives as a pull request. How it works »