Africa Latency Audit

A structured view of public-endpoint response behavior, regional differences and practical next steps for investigation.

REPORT TYPEIllustrative sample

PREPAREDExample layout · not a live scan

SCOPEPublic endpoint only

Median observed TTFB184 ms

Illustrative only. A real report uses measured values where returned.

Locations with results3 of 4

Sample coverage scenario, not a statement about live probe availability.

Priority findings2 to review

Example prioritization language; actual findings depend on evidence.

Developer reference / illustrative data

Sample telemetry output

This payload is fictional and demonstrates a possible timing-data shape only. It is not a live probe response or a guaranteed API schema.

{
  "status": "sample_only",
  "probe": {
    "location": "Nairobi, Kenya",
    "network": "example network",
    "available": true
  },
  "target": "https://example.com",
  "timings_ms": {
    "dns_resolution": 14,
    "tls_handshake": 28,
    "time_to_first_byte": 112
  },
  "network_path": {
    "hop_count": 4,
    "route_details": "illustrative, not measured"
  },
  "measured_at": null,
  "note": "Fictional sample values. Not a live measurement."
}

A production payload may differ. Only display fields actually returned by the measurement provider; unavailable timings should remain unavailable rather than being filled with estimates.

01 / Executive summary

What a report helps you understand

A real audit summarizes the measurements that completed, identifies meaningful differences between returned observations, and separates facts from possible explanations. It does not treat missing probes as slow results or infer the experience of every user from one point in time.

02 / Location comparison

Compare only completed measurements

Fictional sample data below demonstrates how country-level observations may be presented. Real results depend on which public probes respond at scan time.

Location	Sample TTFB	Sample total time	Status	Interpretation
Nairobi, Kenya	142 ms	310 ms	Measured · example	Reference point for this fictional scenario
Lagos, Nigeria	184 ms	420 ms	Measured · example	Compare route and endpoint behavior
Johannesburg, South Africa	226 ms	510 ms	Measured · example	Investigate only if repeat results support it
Cairo, Egypt	—	—	Unavailable · example	No value assigned to missing measurement

Nairobi

142 ms

Lagos

184 ms

Johannesburg

226 ms

03 / Prioritized next steps

Recommendations are tied to evidence

Validate the regional difference

Example action: repeat measurements at different times before attributing the difference to routing, hosting or CDN configuration.

Inspect response and connection timing

Example action: compare DNS, connection, TLS and server response phases where the measurement provider returns those fields.

Separate lab performance from network latency

Example action: use Lighthouse to investigate page experience and probe measurements to investigate point-in-time network behavior. Do not treat one as a substitute for the other.

04 / Method and confidence

Scope and limitations

Measurements target public HTTP/HTTPS endpoints. Probe availability varies. Results are point-in-time observations and may change with routing, ISP, region, DNS, caching, endpoint load and test conditions. Recommendations are hypotheses to validate unless directly demonstrated by the collected evidence.

Actual paid deliverables depend on the selected scope and completed measurements. Private databases, internal services and third-party dependencies are not included unless separately authorized and scoped.

Get the Africa Latency Audit · KES 3,500 Run a free scan

This is a visual sample only. It is not a diagnostic result and should not be used to make production infrastructure decisions.