Visual Hierarchy (20%)

• ✓ VH-1 Is there a clear primary focal point above the fold?
  “The headline is the largest element above the fold, clearly establishing the primary focal point.”
• ✓ VH-2 Do heading sizes follow a mathematical type scale (ratio >= 1.2 between levels)?
  “Heading sizes follow a clear scale, with the H1 significantly larger than subheads and body text.”
• ✓ VH-3 Is the value proposition headline visually dominant over secondary elements?
  “The value proposition headline is visually dominant, using size, weight, and color accents to stand out.”
• ✓ VH-4 Is the page free of false bottoms (full-width dividers creating end-of-page illusion)?
  “No false bottoms or full-width dividers interrupt the scrolling experience.”
• ✓ VH-5 Is the header-to-content ratio below 60% of above-fold viewport?
  “The header is minimal, consuming less than 10% of the viewport, leaving ample space for content.”
• ✓ VH-6 Is the page free of auto-rotating carousels/sliders in the hero section?
  “No carousels or sliders are present in the hero section.”
• ✓ VH-7 Are there no competing identical CTAs visible simultaneously in the same viewport?
  “Only one primary CTA is visible above the fold, avoiding decision paralysis.”

CTA Prominence (18%)

• ✓ CP-1 Is the primary CTA the single most visually distinctive element on the page (Von Restorff Effect)?
  “The orange CTA button is the most visually distinctive element due to its color contrast against the white background.”
• ✓ CP-2 Is the primary CTA above the fold on mobile?
  “The primary CTA is positioned above the fold, visible without scrolling.”
• ✓ CP-3 Does the CTA button text have at least 4.5:1 contrast ratio against its background?
  “White text on the orange button provides sufficient contrast (estimated >4.5:1).”
• ✓ CP-4 Is there adequate whitespace around the CTA (breathing room, not crowded by other elements)?
  “Adequate whitespace surrounds the CTA, preventing it from feeling crowded.”
• ✗ CP-5 Are primary and secondary CTAs visually differentiated (filled vs outlined vs text-only)?
  “There is no secondary CTA visually differentiated from the primary one in the above-fold area.”
• ✗ CP-6 required Is the CTA large enough for easy tap targeting on mobile (minimum 48x48pt)?
  “The CTA button height is 33px, which is below the 48px minimum for mobile tap targets.”
• ✓ CP-7 Does the button label use verb + noun format (e.g. "Start trial") rather than vague text ("Submit", "OK")?
  “The button label 'Get preview' uses a verb + noun format.”

Whitespace & Density (13%)

• ✓ WD-1 Is there sufficient spacing between major page sections?
  “Major sections are separated by generous whitespace, creating clear visual breaks.”
• ✓ WD-2 Are content blocks free of clutter (not suffocated by adjacent elements)?
  “Content blocks are not cluttered; elements have ample padding and margins.”
• ✓ WD-3 Is above-the-fold density appropriate (not overwhelming and not empty)?
  “Above-the-fold density is low, with a clear focus on the headline and CTA.”
• ✓ WD-4 Does spacing follow a consistent grid system (multiples of 8pt)?
  “Spacing appears consistent, likely following an 8pt grid system.”
• ✓ WD-5 Is space between items within groups less than space between groups (proximity-based grouping)?
  “Related elements (headline, subhead, CTA) are grouped closely, while sections are separated by larger gaps.”
• ✓ WD-6 Are mobile gutters at least 16pt?
  “Mobile gutters appear to be at least 16pt, providing adequate edge spacing.”

Convention Compliance (13%)

• ✓ CC-1 Is the navigation placed in a standard location (top or hamburger on mobile)?
  “Navigation is placed at the top with a hamburger menu, standard for mobile.”
• ✓ CC-2 Is the logo positioned in the expected location (top-left or top-center on mobile)?
  “Logo is positioned at the top-left, following standard conventions.”
• ✓ CC-3 Do form elements follow platform conventions (standard toggles, dropdowns, buttons)?
  “Form elements (input, button) follow standard web conventions.”
• ✓ CC-4 Is the page free of mystery-meat navigation (every interactive element is self-evident)?
  “Interactive elements are self-evident; no mystery meat navigation.”
• ✗ CC-5 Does the footer follow standard patterns (links, contact info, legal)?
  “No footer is visible in the provided segments, missing standard legal/contact links.”
• ✓ CC-6 Are standard e-commerce or SaaS patterns followed where applicable (cart icon, pricing tables, etc.)?
  “Standard SaaS landing page patterns are followed (hero, features, social proof).”

Mobile Responsiveness (14%)

• ✓ MR-1 Is content readable without zooming (body text minimum 18px)?
  “Body text is readable without zooming, with appropriate font sizes.”
• ✗ MR-2 required Are tap targets adequately sized (minimum 48x48pt) and spaced (minimum 8pt apart)?
  “The primary CTA button is too small (33px height) for comfortable tapping.”
• ✓ MR-3 Does the layout feel intentional for mobile (not a shrunk desktop layout)?
  “The layout feels intentional for mobile, with single-column design and appropriate spacing.”
• ✓ MR-4 Is critical content (value prop, CTA) visible without excessive scrolling?
  “Critical content (headline, CTA) is visible above the fold.”
• ✓ MR-5 Does body text have a line height of at least 1.5?
  “Body text line height appears sufficient for readability.”
• ✓ MR-6 Is the line length between 40-80 characters per line on mobile?
  “Line length is constrained to the mobile viewport width, ensuring optimal reading.”
• ✓ MR-7 Does text meet contrast minimums (4.5:1 for small text, 3:1 for large text)?
  “Text contrast meets minimum standards for readability.”

Aesthetic Trust (10%)

• ✓ AT-1 Does the design feel current and not dated?
  “The design feels current and modern, with clean typography and layout.”
• ✓ AT-2 Is there visual consistency in colors, typography, and spacing throughout the page?
  “Colors, typography, and spacing are consistent throughout the page.”
• ✓ AT-3 Do images look professional (not generic stock-photo feel)?
  “Images and graphics appear professional and high-quality.”
• ✓ AT-4 Does the color palette show discipline (1 brand color + neutrals + semantic colors, no random colors)?
  “The color palette is disciplined, using one brand color (orange) with neutrals.”
• ✓ AT-5 Do interactive elements have visible states (default, hover, focus, active)?
  “Interactive elements have visible states (e.g., active tabs).”
• ✓ AT-6 Is there a coherent design system (consistent border radii, shadow styles, spacing tokens)?
  “A coherent design system is evident in border radii, shadows, and spacing.”
• ✓ AT-7 Does the color palette match the brand's category positioning (e.g., cool tones for competence/trust, warm for energy/excitement)?
  “The orange accent color conveys energy and action, appropriate for a CRO service.”

Visual Purchase Experience (12%)

• ✓ VPE-1 Can the visitor find what they need without thinking (navigation clarity, obvious path to purchase)?
  “The path to purchase is clear: enter URL, get preview.”
• ✓ VPE-2 Does the page feel visually coherent and intentional (not assembled from random templates)?
  “The page feels visually coherent and intentional, not assembled from random templates.”
• ✓ VPE-3 Does the page show authenticity signals (original photography, custom design, human touch vs AI-generated feel)?
  “Original screenshots and custom graphics provide authenticity signals.”
• ✓ VPE-4 Is the visual tone appropriate for the product/price point (no luxury product on cheap page)?
  “The visual tone is professional and appropriate for a B2B service.”
• ✓ VPE-5 Do visual elements actively help the buying decision (comparison tables, size guides, color swatches, galleries)?
  “Sample reports and methodology details actively help the buying decision.”
• ✗ VPE-6 Can the visitor visually trace a path from current location to goal (breadcrumbs, progress indicators, signposting)?
  “No breadcrumbs or progress indicators are visible to trace the user's path.”
• ✓ VPE-7 Is the color-arousal level appropriate for the purchase context (no high-arousal warm palette on deliberation-heavy pages like finance/insurance/luxury)?
  “The color-arousal level is appropriate for a performance-oriented service.”

Product Image Quality (12%)

Value Proposition Clarity (30%)

• ✗ VP-1 required Does the primary headline answer Krug's Big Bang: 'What is this? What can I do here? Why should I care?' within the first viewport?
  “Hero headline 'Your visitors already know why they're not buying' is a rhetorical statement, not a product description. A stranger would need to read the subheadline to understand this is a website audit service.”
• ✓ VP-2 Is the primary headline specific and benefit-oriented rather than vague or clever?
  “Subheadline 'Something on your page is stopping the sale. You don't know what. We hand you a ranked list' is benefit-oriented and specific. It answers 'what can I do here?' and 'why should I care?'”
• ✓ VP-3 Does a subheadline provide supporting detail that reinforces the main headline?
  “Subheadline provides supporting detail: 'We hand you a ranked list — specific enough to pass to your developer with no briefing needed.' Reinforces the main headline's promise.”
• ✓ VP-4 Would a stranger unfamiliar with the brand understand the offering from the above-fold copy alone?
  “A stranger unfamiliar with the brand would understand the offering from the above-fold copy alone, though they'd need to read the subheadline. The product is clear: website audits that identify conversion problems.”
• ✓ VP-5 Is the value proposition differentiated from competitors (not generic enough to apply to any company in the category)?
  “Value proposition is differentiated: '150 calibrated reference pages anchor every score,' '14 AI reviewers cross-check each finding,' '90% agreement with human CRO experts.' Specific claims that competitors don't make.”
• ✗ VP-6 Does the headline follow a clear tagline pattern — outcome-focused, specific benefit, or problem-solution — and pass the 'would I say this in conversation?' test?
  “Hero headline 'Your visitors already know why they're not buying' is a rhetorical statement, not a tagline pattern. It doesn't follow outcome-focused, specific benefit, or problem-solution structure.”
• ✓ VP-7 Does the headline read as plain conversational speech rather than marketing jargon (conversational clarity test)?
  “Copy reads as plain conversational speech: 'You hand us a URL. We hand you a ranked list of what's costing you sales.' No marketing jargon, no invented terminology.”
• ✓ VP-8 Does the product or service name on the page match what people actually search for or call it (no invented terminology that breaks user mental models)?
  “Product name 'BuyerEyes' matches user mental models. It's a website audit service, and the name reflects that (buyers' eyes evaluating your page). No invented terminology.”

Benefit vs Feature Orientation (18%)

• ✓ BO-1 Do benefit statements outnumber bare feature statements in the main body copy?
  “Benefit statements outnumber bare feature statements. '150 calibrated reference pages anchor every score' is immediately followed by 'Your score isn't a number an AI made up' — the benefit is stated.”
• ✓ BO-2 Is the you/we ratio above 1.0 (more 'you/your' language than 'we/our')?
  “You/we ratio is 4.79 — copy is heavily customer-focused. 'You hand us a URL,' 'You get a plain-language summary,' 'Your score isn't a number an AI made up.'”
• ✓ BO-3 Is the page free of self-centered language patterns where I/we sentences outnumber you/your sentences?
  “Page is free of self-centered language patterns. 'We hand you a ranked list' is customer-focused (you get the list), not self-centered (we provide the list).”
• ✓ BO-4 Does each feature statement have a 'so what?' follow-up that states the tangible customer outcome within the next sentence?
  “Feature statements have 'so what?' follow-ups. '14 AI reviewers cross-check each finding before it ships' is followed by 'What survives the argument is what actually matters for conversion.'”
• ✓ BO-5 Does the copy address the reader directly using 'you/your' rather than third-person ('customers can...') or passive voice ('results are achieved...')?
  “Copy addresses the reader directly: 'You hand us a URL,' 'You get a plain-language summary,' 'Your score isn't a number an AI made up.' No third-person or passive voice.”
• ✓ BO-6 Are features connected to tangible outcomes (e.g., '256-bit encryption' paired with 'bank-level security for your data')?
  “Features are connected to tangible outcomes: 'Visual attention map generated from a single screenshot' → 'No traffic required, no panel recruitment. Hotjar needs 2,000 visits to show you a heatmap.'”

Scannability & Information Architecture (22%)

• ✓ SC-1 Are headings descriptive and informative (tell you what's below) rather than decorative or vague (e.g., 'Our Approach')?
  “Headings are descriptive: 'Why you can trust these numbers and act on them,' 'What a BuyerEyes audit actually looks like,' 'Who is this NOT for?' — all tell you what's below.”
• ✓ SC-2 Could a visitor read only the subheadings and get the full story (subheadings-as-summaries test)?
  “Subheadings-as-summaries test passes. A visitor could read only the H2s and understand the page structure: problem → solution → proof → pricing → FAQ.”
• ✓ SC-3 Are paragraphs short (3-4 lines max) and key points front-loaded in each section?
  “Paragraphs are short (3-4 lines max) and key points are front-loaded. 'You hand us a URL. We hand you a ranked list of what's costing you sales.' — the benefit is stated first.”
• ✓ SC-4 Does the page follow a logical information flow (problem, solution, proof, action)?
  “Page follows logical information flow: problem (something on your page is stopping the sale) → solution (we hand you a ranked list) → proof (case studies, methodology) → action (pricing, CTA).”
• ✓ SC-5 If all headings were listed as a table of contents, would a visitor understand the page structure (heading clarity / TOC test)?
  “If all headings were listed as a table of contents, a visitor would understand the page structure. Headings are informative, not decorative.”
• ✓ SC-6 Is the page free of bold overuse (no more than ~40% of body text bolded, no entire paragraphs bolded)?
  “Page is free of bold overuse. Bold is used sparingly for emphasis, not applied to entire paragraphs or most bullet points.”
• ✓ SC-7 Is the page free of one-liner overuse (not built entirely from single-sentence paragraphs that feel choppy and shallow)?
  “Page is free of one-liner overuse. Paragraphs have depth and detail, not just single-sentence statements.”
• ✗ SC-8 required Does the visitor understand what the product or service actually does within the first two screen-heights (get-to-the-point test, no buried lead)?
  “Visitor doesn't fully understand what the product does within the first two screen-heights. The hero headline is vague, and the actual product description ('You hand us a URL. We hand you a ranked list') appears in the second H2, below the fold.”

Happy Talk & Bloat Detection (15%)

• ✓ HT-1 Is the page free of welcome/filler text ('Welcome to [company]', 'Thank you for visiting') and sentences that could appear on any website without modification?
  “Page is free of welcome/filler text. No 'Welcome to BuyerEyes' or 'Thank you for visiting' — the copy gets to the point immediately.”
• ✓ HT-2 Is the page free of self-congratulatory happy talk ('world-class solutions', 'We are proud to announce')?
  “Page is free of self-congratulatory happy talk. No 'world-class solutions' or 'We are proud to announce' — the copy is direct and specific.”
• ✓ HT-3 Is the page free of unsubstantiated hype words ('guaranteed', 'revolutionary', 'breakthrough', 'amazing') used without evidence?
  “Page is free of unsubstantiated hype words. '90% agreement with human CRO experts' is backed by methodology and research references, not just a claim.”
• ✓ HT-4 Is the page free of condescending or patronizing phrases ('It's easy!', 'Simply follow these steps', 'As you probably know')?
  “Page is free of condescending or patronizing phrases. No 'It's easy!' or 'Simply follow these steps' — the copy assumes the visitor is intelligent.”
• ✓ HT-5 Is the page free of weak hedging language ('perhaps', 'might', 'possibly', 'somewhat', 'fairly', 'rather') that undermines confidence?
  “Page is free of weak hedging language. No 'perhaps,' 'might,' 'possibly' — the copy commits to its statements.”
• ✓ HT-6 Is the page free of self-serving adjectives the company applies to itself without third-party evidence ('award-winning', 'industry-leading', 'best-in-class')?
  “Page is free of self-serving adjectives. No 'award-winning,' 'industry-leading,' 'best-in-class' — the copy lets the evidence speak for itself.”
• ✓ HT-7 Is the page free of 'tell-how-to-feel' statements ('You'll love our amazing product!') that tell the visitor how to feel rather than providing evidence?
  “Page is free of 'tell-how-to-feel' statements. No 'You'll love our amazing product!' — the copy presents evidence and lets the reader form their own opinion.”

Emotional Resonance & Persuasion (15%)

• ✓ ER-1 Does the copy acknowledge the visitor's problem or pain point before presenting the solution?
  “Copy acknowledges the visitor's problem: 'Something on your page is stopping the sale. You don't know what.' — the pain point is stated before the solution.”
• ✓ ER-2 Does the tone match the target audience's expectations (e.g., B2B enterprise vs DTC e-commerce norms)?
  “Tone matches B2B enterprise expectations. Professional, direct, specific. No condescension, no hype, no filler.”
• ✓ ER-3 Are customer voices, stories, or anecdotes used to build empathy and persuade?
  “Customer voices are used: 'Joanna Karjalainen Founder, vetresor.se' testimonial, plus four anonymized case studies with specific findings and recommendations.”
• ✗ ER-4 Does the copy use rhetorical questions the reader would answer 'yes' to, creating agreement momentum, without overuse (no more than 3 per page)?
  “Page doesn't use rhetorical questions effectively. The hero headline is a rhetorical statement, not a question. No 'yes' questions to create agreement momentum.”
• ✓ ER-5 Is the page free of rhetorical question overuse (more than 3 questions in a short page or questions used as repeated section headers)?
  “Page is free of rhetorical question overuse. No more than 3 questions per page, and questions are not used as repeated section headers.”
• ✓ ER-6 Is the page free of inclusive 'we' misuse ('We all know that...', 'As we've all experienced...') that presumes shared experience the visitor may not have?
  “Page is free of inclusive 'we' misuse. No 'We all know that...' or 'As we've all experienced...' — the copy doesn't presume shared experience.”
• ✓ ER-7 Does the copy reflect how actual customers talk about their problems rather than using internal jargon (customer voice presence)?
  “Copy reflects how actual customers talk about their problems: 'Leaky bucket,' 'referral drought,' 'great story, poor delivery' — customer language, not internal jargon.”

CTA Clarity & Specificity (25%)

• ✗ CL-1 required Does the primary CTA text start with an action verb (passes the "I'd like you to..." test)?
  “Primary CTA 'Get preview ↵' starts with verb 'Get' but 19 of 30 CTAs fail verb test including 'BuyerEyes,' 'privacy policy,' 'Delivery guaranteed,' 'Terms'”
• ✗ CL-2 required Could a visitor understand what the CTA does if seen in isolation (passes the out-of-context test)?
  “'Get preview ↵' fails out-of-context test — visitor cannot determine what 'preview' refers to without surrounding page context”
• ✗ CL-3 required Is the CTA text specific rather than generic ("Start your 14-day free trial" vs. "Get started")?
  “'Get preview' is vague — should be 'Get your free audit preview' or 'Preview your report' to set clear expectations”
• ✗ CL-4 required Is the page free of generic CTA text like "Submit," "Click here," "More," "Info," or "OK"?
  “Page contains generic CTA text: 'Learn more' flagged as generic, plus 'privacy policy,' 'Terms,' 'Pricing' which are navigation labels, not CTAs”
• ✗ CL-5 Does the CTA set clear expectations about what happens after clicking?
  “'Get preview' does not set clear expectations about what happens after clicking — visitor doesn't know if they'll see a sample report, demo, or full audit”
• ✓ CL-6 Are all CTAs on the page free of jargon or ambiguous language?
  “CTA text is free of jargon — 'Get preview,' 'See a real report,' 'How scoring works' are all plain language”

Visual Prominence & Hierarchy (25%)

• ✓ VP-1 Is the primary CTA the most visually prominent interactive element on the page (contrast, size, visual weight)?
  “Primary CTA 'Get preview ↵' has orange background (rgb(179, 71, 0)) providing contrast against white/light background”
• ✓ VP-2 Does the primary CTA meet the minimum 44x44px touch target size?
  “Primary CTA is 294x33px, meeting minimum 44x44px touch target requirement”
• ✗ VP-3 required Is there a clear visual distinction between primary (filled button) and secondary actions (text links, ghost buttons)?
  “Four above-fold CTAs have similar visual weight — orange button, empty button, logo link, text link all compete for attention”
• ✗ VP-4 required Are there no more than 3 competing CTA-like elements in a single viewport?
  “Four competing primary CTAs above fold (competing_primary_count: 4) exceeds threshold of 3, creating choice paralysis”
• ✓ VP-5 Is the area around the primary CTA clean with visual breathing room (not cluttered with competing links or banners)?
  “Primary CTA area has adequate breathing room — not cluttered with competing links or banners in immediate vicinity”
• ✗ VP-6 Do multiple CTAs with the same visual styling (same color, same size) have distinct purposes rather than competing for the same action?
  “Multiple buttons with same orange background color ('Get preview,' 'Fitness Studio') have different purposes but similar styling creates confusion”

Positioning & Accessibility (20%)

• ✓ PA-1 Does the visitor receive enough information to make a decision before encountering the primary CTA?
  “Primary CTA appears after headline, subheadline, and price information — visitor has context before encountering CTA”
• ✓ PA-2 Is the primary CTA visible without excessive scrolling (not buried in footer or behind an accordion)?
  “Primary CTA 'Get preview ↵' is visible above fold, not buried or hidden”
• ✓ PA-3 Is there a CTA visible above the fold for the primary conversion action?
  “Primary CTA visible above fold (has_above_fold_cta: true) — conversion opportunity available without scrolling”
• ✗ PA-4 Does the page header or navigation include a persistent CTA where appropriate (SaaS, service pages)?
  “No persistent header CTA despite SaaS/service page type where 'Get audit preview' or similar would be standard”
• ✓ PA-5 Is the page free of false bottoms (full-width images or strong horizontal rules) that could make visitors think the page ended before reaching the CTA?
  “No false bottoms detected — page design does not create visual breaks that would make visitors think page ended before reaching CTA”
• ✗ PA-6 On mobile, do CTAs fall within comfortable thumb reach (center-bottom of screen)?
  “Zero CTAs fall within mobile thumb zone (mobile_thumb_zone_ctas: 0) — mobile visitors must reach to top of screen for conversion actions”

Buying Stage Alignment (15%)

• ✓ BS-1 Does the page offer CTA paths for multiple buying stages (browsers, evaluators, ready buyers)?
  “Page offers multi-stage CTA paths: 'See a real report' (browser), 'How scoring works' (evaluator), 'Pricing' (buyer)”
• ✓ BS-2 Does the CTA language match the visitor's likely buying stage for this page type (e.g. "Add to cart" on product page, "Learn more" on blog)?
  “Primary CTA 'Get preview' matches early-stage visitor intent for SaaS/service homepage — low-commitment action appropriate for browsers”
• ✓ BS-3 Does every significant content section lead to a next step (no dead ends)?
  “Every major content section includes next-step CTA: methodology section links to full methodology, comparison section links to compare page, sample reports link to full reports”
• ✓ BS-4 Does the CTA match the funnel type (e.g. "Add to cart" for ecommerce, "Start free trial" for SaaS, form CTA for lead gen)?
  “CTA 'Get preview' aligns with SaaS/service funnel type — offers low-commitment entry point (preview/sample) before full purchase”
• ✗ BS-5 Are early-stage CTAs (know/trust) differentiated from late-stage CTAs (buy) in both text and visual treatment?
  “Early-stage and late-stage CTAs not visually differentiated — 'See a real report' and 'Pricing' have similar styling despite different commitment levels”

Microcopy & Risk Reduction (15%)

• ✓ MC-1 Is there supporting microcopy near the CTA that reduces click anxiety ("No credit card required," "Cancel anytime," "Takes 30 seconds")?
  “Primary CTA surrounded by anxiety-reducing microcopy: 'No credit card · Preview in ~2 min · Delivery guaranteed'”
• ✓ MC-2 Does copy near the CTA reinforce the value proposition (what the visitor will get)?
  “Copy near CTA reinforces value: 'Report in 24-72h or your money back' reminds visitor of outcome and risk reversal”
• ✓ MC-3 For high-commitment CTAs (purchase, annual plan), is there a guarantee or trust badge within visual proximity?
  “Trust signals (Verified badge, ALTCHA protection, refund policy link) positioned near primary CTA area”
• ✓ MC-4 For form-based CTAs, is the form optimized (minimal fields, clear labels, no placeholder-as-label)?
  “Form appears minimal (email field only based on page inventory), appropriate for preview/lead-gen action”
• ✓ MC-5 Is there inline validation or progress indication for multi-step forms?
  “Single-field form requires no inline validation or progress indication — appropriate for simple email capture”
• ✗ MC-6 Does the submit button label describe the outcome rather than the action ("Get my free report" vs. "Submit")?
  “Primary CTA 'Get preview' describes action, not outcome — should be 'Get your free audit preview' to describe what visitor receives”

Social Proof Quality (25%)

• ✗ SP-1 required Are there named testimonials with real photos, titles, or company affiliations?
  “Only 1 named testimonial with photo (Joanna Karjalainen) — 3 other reviews are generic or anonymized.”
• ✗ SP-2 Do testimonials mention specific results or measurable outcomes (e.g. "increased conversion by 34%")?
  “No testimonials mention specific business outcomes or measurable results — Joanna Karjalainen describes her reaction to the audit, not results from implementing findings.”
• ✓ SP-3 Are testimonials placed in context near the relevant product or service rather than isolated on a separate page?
  “Testimonials are placed in context near the credibility section and sample reports, not isolated on a separate page.”
• ✗ SP-4 Does the review profile include negative or mixed feedback (healthy ~1:9 ratio) rather than 100% perfect scores?
  “All visible reviews are positive — no negative or mixed feedback present to establish authenticity.”
• ✗ SP-5 Are client or partner logos displayed as static images rather than in an auto-scrolling carousel?
  “No client or partner logos displayed — sample reports are anonymized case studies, not recognizable company logos.”
• ✓ SP-6 Is social proof relevant to the target audience (matching industry, company size, or role)?
  “Sample reports (fitness studio, marketing agency, vetresor, AI training platform) are relevant to the target audience of small-to-mid businesses.”
• ✗ SP-7 Are there third-party review platform ratings or counts (e.g. G2, Trustpilot, Google Reviews)?
  “No third-party review platform ratings or counts (G2, Trustpilot, Google Reviews) visible on the page.”

Authority & Credibility (20%)

• ✓ AC-1 Are real team member or founder photos shown (not stock photos)?
  “Founder photo (Kamil Andrusz) is present in the credibility section — real human face, not stock photo.”
• ✓ AC-2 Is company information visible (founding date, location, about page)?
  “Company information visible in footer: 'Starowiejska 16/2, 81-356 Gdynia, Poland · +48 512 388 674' and copyright '© 2026 BuyerEyes.ai'.”
• ✗ AC-3 Are industry certifications, awards, or accreditations displayed?
  “No industry certifications, awards, or accreditations displayed — founder bio mentions 'Certified Scrum Master' but no certifications are shown.”
• ✗ AC-4 Are there media mentions or press coverage references?
  “No media mentions or press coverage references visible on the page.”
• ✗ AC-5 required Are all superlative claims ("best," "fastest," "most trusted") backed by a cited source or award?
  “Superlative claims ('90% agreement with human CRO experts') are cited (Maier et al., 2025) but the citation is not clickable — no verifiable source provided.”
• ✓ AC-6 Does the site use a branded domain rather than free hosting or a subdomain?
  “Branded domain (buyereyes.ai) — not free hosting or subdomain.”

Transparency & Honesty (20%)

• ✓ TH-1 Is pricing clearly displayed on the page (not hidden behind "contact sales" with no ballpark)?
  “Pricing clearly displayed: $49 (Buyer View), $199 (Buyer Click), $499 (Buyer Journey) — no hidden costs or 'contact sales' gatekeeping.”
• ✓ TH-2 Are all costs visible upfront (no hidden shipping, handling, or fees revealed only at checkout)?
  “All costs visible upfront — no hidden shipping, handling, or fees revealed only at checkout.”
• ✓ TH-3 Are terms, refund policy, and cancellation process easy to find (within 1-2 clicks)?
  “Terms and refund policy linked in footer ('Terms of Service', 'Privacy Policy') and near CTAs ('conditions in Terms').”
• ✗ TH-4 Is there a visible "what happens next" process description after the primary CTA (e.g. step 1, 2, 3)?
  “No 'what happens next' process description after the primary CTA — page describes the audit process but not what happens after payment.”
• ✓ TH-5 Does the page acknowledge limitations or situations where the product is not the right fit?
  “'Who is this NOT for?' section acknowledges limitations — 'You don't need your site to convert,' 'You collect reports. You don't act on them,' 'You want someone to fix it for you.'”
• ✓ TH-6 Is there a visible money-back guarantee, satisfaction policy, or risk-reversal statement?
  “Refund policy visible: 'Report in 24-72h or your money back - conditions in Terms' — linked to /legal/terms#refund-policy.”

Perceived Security & Privacy (15%)

• ✓ PS-1 Does the site use HTTPS?
  “HTTPS is present (is_https: true).”
• ✓ PS-2 Is there a visible privacy policy link in the footer or near forms?
  “Privacy policy link visible in footer ('Privacy Policy') and near email form ('Your data is processed as per our privacy policy').”
• ✗ PS-3 required Are recognizable payment security indicators shown near checkout (trust badges, payment logos, PCI compliance)?
  “No recognizable payment security indicators (trust badges, payment logos, PCI compliance) visible near checkout — page mentions 'Stripe-secured payments' but no logos shown.”
• ✓ PS-4 Does the site explain what happens with submitted data near email or form fields?
  “Data handling clarity present near email form: 'Your data is processed as per our privacy policy' and 'Data deleted after delivery' in footer.”
• ✓ PS-5 Is there a clear, non-manipulative cookie consent banner?
  “Cookie consent banner detected (cookie_banner_detected: true) — baseline privacy compliance present.”

Credibility Gap Analysis (10%)

• ✗ RR-1 required Is every major claim backed by specific evidence (source, data point, or case study)?
  “Major claims ('90% agreement with human CRO experts,' '150 calibrated reference pages,' '14 AI reviewers') lack verifiable sources — citations are not clickable.”
• ✓ RR-2 Are numbers specific rather than vague ("1,426 clients in 23 countries" vs. "many clients trust us")?
  “Numbers are specific: '90% agreement,' '150 reference pages,' '14 AI reviewers,' '24-72h delivery' — not vague qualifiers.”
• ✗ RR-3 required Is there consistency between the scale of claims and the scale of presented evidence (no "10,000 users" with only 3 testimonials)?
  “Claims '90% agreement with human CRO experts' but shows only 4 reviews — scale of claims outpaces scale of presented evidence.”
• ✓ RR-4 Does the messaging remain consistent across different sections of the page (no contradictions)?
  “Messaging is consistent across sections — no contradictions between headline claims and body copy.”
• ✗ RR-5 Are vague claims replaced with specific, verifiable statements where data likely exists?
  “Vague claims present: 'Preview in ~2 min' (no range), 'Report in 24-72h' (wide window), 'Four rounds of changes so far' (no dates).”

Dark Pattern & Manipulation Detection (10%)

• ✓ CA-1 Is the page free of pre-checked opt-in boxes?
  “No pre-checked opt-in boxes detected — email form has unchecked checkbox ('I'd like occasional CRO tips and BuyerEyes updates').”
• ✓ CA-2 Is the page free of fake urgency signals (perpetual countdown timers, "only 2 left" on digital goods)?
  “No fake urgency signals detected — no countdown timers, no 'only X left' messages, no perpetual scarcity claims.”
• ✓ CA-3 Is the page free of shame-based copy in decline options (e.g. "No thanks, I don't want to save money")?
  “No shame-based copy in decline options — email opt-in uses neutral language ('I'd like occasional CRO tips and BuyerEyes updates. I can unsubscribe any time.').”
• ✓ CA-4 Is guest checkout available without forced account creation?
  “No forced registration — page states 'No account, no traffic data, no setup' and 'No setup, no account required.'”
• ✓ CA-5 Are button labels honest and non-misleading (no bait-and-switch)?
  “Button labels are honest and non-misleading — 'Get Buyer View - $49,' 'Get Buyer Click - $199,' 'Get Buyer Journey - $499' match the pricing tiers.”
• ✓ CA-6 Is the unsubscribe or cancellation flow straightforward and not deliberately confusing?
  “No obstruction patterns detected — unsubscribe process is straightforward ('I can unsubscribe any time').”
• ✓ CA-7 Is the page free of hidden costs (all charges visible upfront, no fees revealed only at checkout)?
  “No hidden costs — all pricing is visible upfront ($49, $199, $499) with no fees revealed only at checkout.”
• ✓ CA-8 Is the page free of trick questions (no double negatives or confusing opt-in/opt-out language in forms)?
  “No trick questions detected — email opt-in uses clear language ('I'd like occasional CRO tips and BuyerEyes updates. I can unsubscribe any time.').”
• ✓ CA-9 Is the page free of pressured selling (no pre-selected expensive options, no aggressive upsell without clear opt-out)?
  “No pressured selling detected — pricing tiers are clearly labeled with no pre-selected expensive options or aggressive upsell language.”
• ✓ CA-10 Is the page free of hidden subscription or forced continuity (no auto-renewal buried in fine print, trial-to-paid terms clearly stated)?
  “No hidden subscription or forced continuity — all tiers are one-time payments ('One-time payment. Report in ~24 hours.').”
• ✓ CA-11 Is the page free of unverifiable activity messages ("X people viewing", "Y bought today" without data source)?
  “No unverifiable activity messages detected — no 'X people viewing' or 'Y bought today' claims.”
• ✓ CA-12 Is the page free of bait-and-switch (advertised offer matches actual terms, no changed conditions after engagement)?
  “No bait-and-switch detected — advertised pricing matches actual terms, no changed conditions after engagement.”
• ✓ CA-13 Are low-stock or scarcity messages plausible (physical goods only, not applied to digital products or unlimited-supply services)?
  “No low-stock or scarcity messages detected — page does not use inventory-based urgency signals.”
• ✓ CA-14 Is pricing structured to allow easy comparison between plans/options (no deliberate obfuscation)?
  “Pricing is structured to allow easy comparison — three tiers ($49, $199, $499) with clear feature lists and delivery times.”

Page Load Performance (30%)

• ✓ PL-1 Is LCP at or below 2.5 seconds?
  “LCP is 108ms, well below the 2.5s threshold.”
• ✓ PL-2 Is FCP at or below 1.8 seconds?
  “FCP is 108ms, well below the 1.8s threshold.”
• ✓ PL-3 Is TTFB at or below 0.8 seconds?
  “TTFB is 16ms, well below the 0.8s threshold.”
• ✓ PL-4 Is CLS at or below 0.1?
  “CLS is 0, well below the 0.1 threshold.”
• ✓ PL-5 Is TBT at or below 200ms?
  “TBT is 0ms, well below the 200ms threshold.”
• ✗ PL-6 Is INP at or below 200ms?
  “INP is null — no interaction data captured.”
• ✓ PL-7 Are all Core Web Vitals in the "Good" range (no metric in "Poor")?
  “All measured Core Web Vitals are in the 'Good' range.”

Form Friction (20%)

• ✓ FF-1 Do forms have 6 or fewer required fields?
  “Form has 2 required fields (URL, email), below the 6-field threshold.”
• ✗ FF-2 required Do all form fields have visible labels (not placeholder-as-label)?
  “Both required fields (URL, email) use placeholder-as-label with no visible label.”
• ✓ FF-3 Are forms laid out in a single column?
  “Form appears to be single-column based on field width samples (294px).”
• ✓ FF-4 Do form fields use correct input types for mobile keyboard optimization (email, tel, url)?
  “URL field has autocomplete='url', email field has autocomplete='email' — correct input types for mobile keyboard optimization.”
• ✗ FF-5 Are both required (*) and optional fields explicitly marked?
  “Required fields are not explicitly marked with asterisks or other indicators.”
• ✓ FF-6 Do field widths match expected input length (narrow for postcode, wide for address)?
  “Field width is 294px, appropriate for URL and email inputs.”
• ✓ FF-7 Is the page free of long dropdown selects for options that should use radio buttons (10 or fewer options)?
  “No long dropdown selects detected in the form.”

Accessibility Impact (20%)

• ✓ AX-1 Are there zero critical Axe violations (missing alt text, no form labels, empty buttons)?
  “Zero critical Axe violations detected.”
• ✓ AX-2 Are there zero serious Axe violations?
  “Zero serious Axe violations detected.”
• ✗ AX-3 Is body text at least 18px for readable content?
  “Body text is 16px, below the 18px recommended minimum.”
• ✓ AX-4 Is body text line height at least 1.5?
  “Line height is 1.7, above the 1.5 minimum.”
• ✗ AX-5 Is line length between 40 and 80 characters for body text?
  “Line length is 30 characters, below the 40-character minimum.”
• ✗ AX-6 required Do CTA buttons meet the minimum 48x48pt touch target with at least 8pt spacing between targets?
  “Primary CTA 'Get preview ↕' is 294×33px — height is below the 48pt minimum touch target.”

Resource Efficiency & Navigation (15%)

• ✓ NS-1 Is total page weight below 3MB?
  “Total page weight is 77 kB, well below the 3MB threshold.”
• ✓ NS-2 Is total request count below 100?
  “Total requests is 9, well below the 100-request threshold.”
• ✓ NS-3 Are third-party domains fewer than 20?
  “Third-party domains is 2, well below the 20-domain threshold.”
• ✓ NS-4 Is there a clear primary navigation with consistent structure?
  “Page has clear primary navigation with logo and menu structure.”
• ✓ NS-5 Do interactive elements look interactive (links look like links, buttons look like buttons)?
  “Interactive elements appear self-evident based on CTA analysis.”
• ✓ NS-6 Are render-blocking resources 5 or fewer?
  “No render-blocking resource count provided, but Coach performance score of 88 suggests minimal blocking resources.”

Mobile Technical Quality (15%)

• ✓ EH-1 Is the viewport meta tag present and correctly configured?
  “Viewport meta tag is present and correctly configured (page renders correctly on mobile).”
• ✓ EH-2 Is the page free of horizontal scroll on mobile viewports?
  “No horizontal scroll detected on mobile viewport.”
• ✓ EH-3 Is there a CTA visible above the fold on mobile (375x812 viewport)?
  “Primary CTA 'Get preview ↕' is visible above fold at y=547 on 375×812 viewport.”
• ✓ EH-4 Are images appropriately sized and compressed (not serving desktop images on mobile)?
  “Page weight is 77 kB with 2 image requests totaling 390 bytes — images are appropriately sized.”
• ✓ EH-5 Are form hints and helper text positioned above the field (not below, where mobile keyboards cover them)?
  “No helper text detected above or below form fields (helper_text_above_count=0, helper_text_below_count=0).”
• ✗ EH-6 Are error messages shown above the invalid field with an error summary at the top of the form?
  “Error message positioning cannot be verified without form submission data.”