An agency approaching a prospective client needs to explain what it could improve on that client’s website. In July 2026, I explored turning that explanation into a short report and made a two-page sample. It used a white-label format: an agency could put its own name and logo on the proposed deliverable. I used three fictional businesses and fictional observations to show the format, and marked both pages as illustrative samples rather than client results.
I organised the main table so that a reader could follow a problem through to a first change. Each row brought together a point of friction for visitors, the evidence behind it, a proposed fix and a priority. The report was built around a change an agency could explain to a client.
From an observation to a first change
One example imagined a dental website whose mobile enquiry button opened an eight-field form, with evidence supporting the service placed below it. The suggested first change was to shorten the opening step to a name, email address and description of the enquiry, and put a point of reassurance beside the button. This was a fictional scenario showing how an observation could lead to a concrete recommendation; it was not a finding from an actual dental website.
The other examples covered missing information about location and response time, and inconsistent labels on buttons asking visitors to take the next step. Those buttons are often called calls to action, or CTAs. In the sample, the question was whether they guided a visitor consistently through the page.
The priorities were not measured scores. The second page proposed weighing likely impact against the effort of making a change, then describing the first action clearly enough for a non-technical client. Whether that judgement would be useful on a real client site remained to be tested.
Putting the service boundaries on the page
I scoped the offer around public webpages. Each site would have one relevant path examined, such as making an enquiry or finding a service, with a public URL and a recorded observation for every finding. The proposed delivery combined an agency-branded PDF, source screenshots or page references, a ranked fix list and a short summary for approaching the prospect. It also allowed one revision for mechanical corrections and brand alignment.
The exclusions were specific: private analytics, penetration testing, accessibility certification, legal compliance opinions, search-ranking guarantees and implementation inside the client’s content management system. Identifying visible friction, establishing its cause and changing a live site each call for different information and responsibilities. The sample made no promise of increased traffic or revenue.
The plan was to automate repeatable collection and report preparation, leaving a person to make the final decision about which issues to include and how to rank them. The sample shows that division of work and the shape of a report, but it does not demonstrate the quality or review time of an audit applied to a real site.
An actual client delivery, purchase or revenue is not established in this material. A further test would start with one public site, collect the evidence directly and examine both the validity of the proposed changes and the time needed to review them.