Client Feedback Triage

Self-initiated fictional demonstration from a local independent AI test. Not customer work, an approved revision plan, or a proven business result.

Review Context

Fictional workshop signup site: one page, current desktop and mobile draft v3, round 2. The agreed brief excludes new pages. Morgan is the final client decision owner for copy and visual direction; authority to expand scope is not supplied. No implementation dates are agreed.

This is text-only triage of S1-S6, not design inspection or approval. The main open dependencies are the hero-photo decision and the requested scope expansion. READY FOR REVIEW means ready for human consideration, not authorized, scheduled, implemented, or signed off.

Source Key

Labels identify supplied text, not independently verified evidence. Dates are reproduced without an inferred year.

• S1: Morgan, final copy/visual decision owner; email; September 8; v3.
• S2: Designer meeting note reporting Morgan's repeated CTA request; September 8; v3. This is a reported repetition, not a separate stakeholder endorsement.
• S3: Marketing reviewer; chat; September 8; desktop v3.
• S4: Sales reviewer; email; September 9; desktop v3.
• S5: Morgan; email; September 9; v3 footer.
• S6: Marketing reviewer; chat; September 9; v3 feedback requesting a separate page.

Revision Queue

• Q1 | Signup page v3, desktop and mobile main CTA | READY FOR REVIEW Replace "Register" with exactly "Reserve my place" on both layouts. Sources: S1, S2, merged as the same request. No unresolved conflict or asset dependency is stated. Proposed review check: confirm the exact label on both layouts; no change has been performed.
• Q2 | Signup page desktop v3, hero photograph | DECISION NEEDED S3 requests removal so the title has more space. S4 requests retention because the photograph feels personal. Keep these alternatives separate; the later date of S4 does not override S3. Dependency: Morgan's explicit decision on this target. Do not infer additional title or layout changes.
• Q3 | Signup page v3, footer date | READY FOR REVIEW Replace the date with exactly "18 October 2026". Source: S5. No conflicting instruction or missing asset is stated. Proposed review check: verify the exact footer text; no design or date rendering has been inspected.
• Q4 | Proposed separate speaker biography page, version not supplied | SCOPE CHECK Add a separate speaker biography page. Source: S6. This is outside the supplied one-page/no-new-pages baseline. Dependency: an explicit scope decision from an identified scope owner; if included, the page requirements and content remain to be supplied. No fee, revision allowance, or delivery date is inferred.

Unresolved Decisions

• D1 / Q2: Remove or retain the desktop v3 hero photograph? Decision owner: Morgan. Evidence needed: an explicit decision addressing S3 and S4. Their stated reasons are preferences, not agreed acceptance criteria.
• D2 / Q4: Should the scope be expanded to include the biography page? Scope decision owner: owner not supplied. Evidence needed: an authorized scope decision and, if included, the revised page brief. Morgan's stated copy/visual authority alone does not establish scope authority.

Clarification Draft

Unsent: "Hi Morgan, the CTA wording (Q1; S1-S2) and footer date (Q3; S5) are recorded for review. Two points remain:

1. For desktop v3, should the hero photograph be removed to give the title more space (S3), or retained for its personal feel (S4)?
2. Who can decide whether to expand the one-page brief, and should the separate speaker biography page (Q4; S6) be included? These questions do not set an implementation date or change the agreed scope."

Coverage Check

All substantive requests in the supplied S1-S6 excerpt are represented: S1 and S2 are explicitly merged in Q1; S3 and S4 remain visible as conflicting alternatives in Q2; S5 is Q3; S6 is held for scope review in Q4. No other material was reviewed.