The playbook
Website Sitemap Planning: Review Process
A useful website sitemap planning review ends with a supported decision for each item examined. Define the evidence required before opening the report: page name, purpose, parent, content owner. These fields give reviewers a shared basis for agreeing what is working, what needs attention, and who should act.
Put the task in context
Add a one-sentence purpose beside each proposed page. If two pages need the same explanation, examine whether they should be combined. Include supporting destinations such as confirmation pages and error states in the production plan even when they are not main navigation items.
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 |
|---|---|
| Inventory current content and planned offerings | Is the supporting page name current and traceable? |
| Assign a purpose and parent to each proposed page | Does purpose support the decision being made? |
| Remove duplicate pages before production | Can the next owner verify content owner? |
Inspect the evidence before assigning a result
For each item, compare the intended behavior with the observed behavior. Pay particular attention to confusing a planning sitemap with a technical XML sitemap. 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, use the plan to define human navigation and create XML separately. 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 approved pages with clear purpose using the same definition as the baseline. A good summary lets the responsible person decide what happens next without reading every working note.
Keep the page’s main task visible when adding helpful detail. Supporting information should reduce uncertainty at the decision point. If a section introduces a second unrelated offer, decide whether it belongs on another page.
Skip the manual steps. Let AgentixHUB run this for every client.
Start now