The playbook
Homepage Design: Review Process
A useful homepage design review ends with a supported decision for each item examined. Define the evidence required before opening the report: section, message, proof, destination. These fields give reviewers a shared basis for agreeing what is working, what needs attention, and who should act.
Put the task in context
A visitor should quickly understand who the offer serves, what it does, and where to go next. Use a real product view or specific project evidence where it explains the offering. Keep secondary audiences navigable without giving every section a competing primary button.
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 |
|---|---|
| Explain the offer and intended audience near the top | Is the supporting section current and traceable? |
| Show credible proof and major service paths | Does message support the decision being made? |
| Keep the main action visually clear on mobile | Can the next owner verify destination? |
Inspect the evidence before assigning a result
For each item, compare the intended behavior with the observed behavior. Pay particular attention to giving every section an equally prominent competing action. 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, create a clear primary path and useful secondary navigation. 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 interaction 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 qualified onward journeys using the same definition as the baseline. A good summary lets the responsible person decide what happens next without reading every working note.
Verify the actual visitor journey on a narrow screen and with a keyboard. A design can look complete while hiding an unreachable control or a missing confirmation. Record the task attempted and what happened at the end.
Skip the manual steps. Let AgentixHUB run this for every client.
Start now