The playbook
Website Project Handoff: Review Process
A useful website project handoff review ends with a supported decision for each item examined. Define the evidence required before opening the report: asset, owner, access method, operating procedure. These fields give reviewers a shared basis for agreeing what is working, what needs attention, and who should act.
Put the task in context
Demonstrate editing a key page, receiving an inquiry, publishing a correction, and requesting support. Document who controls the domain, hosting, billing, and administrative access. Use an access reference rather than putting passwords in a shared operating document.
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 |
|---|---|
| Document access ownership publishing and content changes | Is the supporting asset current and traceable? |
| Demonstrate inquiry handling and common recovery tasks | Does owner support the decision being made? |
| Record outstanding issues and support responsibilities | Can the next owner verify operating procedure? |
Inspect the evidence before assigning a result
For each item, compare the intended behavior with the observed behavior. Pay particular attention to delivering a login without explaining daily operations. 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, provide an operating guide and verify the owner can complete key tasks. 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 handoff tasks completed independently using the same definition as the baseline. A good summary lets the responsible person decide what happens next without reading every working note.
Design recovery as part of the experience. People enter incomplete information, use slow connections, and return to interrupted tasks. A clear error and a preserved input are often more useful than another decorative element.
Skip the manual steps. Let AgentixHUB run this for every client.
Start now