The playbook
Core Web Vitals: Review Process
A useful Core Web Vitals review ends with a supported decision for each item examined. Define the evidence required before opening the report: template, metric, field period, change. These fields give reviewers a shared basis for agreeing what is working, what needs attention, and who should act.
Put the task in context
Largest Contentful Paint concerns loading the main visible content, Interaction to Next Paint concerns responsiveness, and Cumulative Layout Shift concerns visual stability. Investigate the responsible element or interaction. Use field observations for real-user conditions and laboratory tests to diagnose particular changes.
Set the review boundary
Choose the records or journeys that matter to the current question. Include a normal case, a recently changed case, and an exception where available. This is a diagnostic sample, not a claim that every item has been checked. Record how the sample was selected and what would justify expanding it.
Use explicit review criteria
| Criterion | Review question |
|---|---|
| Review field data separately from laboratory tests | Is the supporting template current and traceable? |
| Find the page elements contributing to poor experiences | Does metric support the decision being made? |
| Test focused changes without breaking functionality | Can the next owner verify change? |
Inspect the evidence before assigning a result
For each item, compare the intended behavior with the observed behavior. Pay particular attention to treating a single lab score as a complete user-experience measure. If it appears, record where it occurs and which assumption it contradicts. Distinguish a verified defect from an unanswered question and from a preference about how the work should look.
Where the evidence supports the known correction, compare representative field results and functional checks over time. Give that action to an accountable owner with a description of the expected result. If you cannot yet identify the cause, assign a diagnostic action rather than prescribing a speculative repair.
Record a decision that can be acted on
| Decision | When to use it |
|---|---|
| Keep | The current state serves the intended task and the evidence is adequate. |
| Revise | A specific gap is confirmed and the proposed action addresses it. |
| Investigate | Important information is missing or conflicting. |
| Retire or combine | The item has no distinct useful purpose in the current scope. |
Verify corrections and expand selectively
Recheck the affected page or query record after the owner completes the action. Then inspect other items sharing the relevant cause. A shared template, process rule, or data source may justify expanding the review. Similar wording or appearance alone is a weaker reason.
Turn the review into a decision summary
Summarize the affected scope, confirmed findings, actions, and open questions. Connect the findings to field experience by page group using the same definition as the baseline. A good summary lets the responsible person decide what happens next without reading every working note.
Keep a dated record of the page or query being examined. Search interfaces and external references can change. A saved observation should include enough context to distinguish an old issue from the current state.
Skip the manual steps. Let AgentixSEO run this for every client.
Start now