Urgent work without availability
A page promises immediate repairs while the team only accepts planned work. The form still offers an urgent request.
Open the brief and review case28 review cases for sector websites
Choose a situation close to your project. Each case describes a possible issue, a proposed check and useful evidence. These are educational scenarios to test in a copy with fictitious data, not incidents observed in client projects.
12 sectors: check a real journey
Three conflicting menu versions
The HTML page, PDF and photograph show different dishes or prices. Visitors cannot identify the current menu.
Open the brief and review caseAn enquiry mistaken for a booking
The stay form displays confirmation before anyone has checked rooms, dates or conditions. Visitors may believe accommodation is reserved.
Open the brief and review caseStock changes during checkout
A product is available on its page but cannot be supplied when the order is completed. Visitors cannot tell what was retained.
Open the brief and review caseAn old campaign remains active
A past campaign still has a prominent registration or contribution button. The team no longer knows who receives related enquiries.
Open the brief and review caseA full course remains bookable
A course page offers enrolment although the session is full or moved. Dates differ between programme, form and confirmation.
Open the brief and review caseA capacity presented without limits
A production page lists capacity without material, tolerance, quantity or conditions. An equipment image appears to justify every possible request.
Open the brief and review caseAn unqualified quotation request
The form asks only for a name and email although the offer depends on scope, timing and constraints. The team must restart qualification.
Open the brief and review caseA schedule changed on one support
A performance time changes but poster, event page and booking link still disagree.
Open the brief and review caseA namesake leads to the wrong town
A town search returns a namesake in another department. The name alone does not distinguish the destination.
Open the brief and review caseA service without a defined deliverable
An offer promises support without describing output, exchanges or required information. Prospects cannot tell what they will receive.
Open the brief and review caseA venue change is forgotten
The event page is corrected but confirmation email and downloaded directions still show the old venue or entrance.
Open the brief and review case16 roles: review a deliverable
One testimony becomes a general rule
A synthesis turns one participant’s difficulty into a conclusion about every user. Notes mix observation and interpretation.
Open the brief and review caseThe button state remains ambiguous
A button changes colour after activation, but wording and interface do not show whether the action is pending, successful or failed.
Open the brief and review caseA translated heading overflows
A template works with a short heading but a longer translation hides an action or becomes unreadable on mobile.
Open the brief and review caseA prototype confirms too early
A mock-up confirms an appointment while the business process only receives an enquiry. Visual and operational decisions diverge.
Open the brief and review caseOld search results replace new ones
Search requests return in a different order from submission. The interface displays results for a term already replaced.
Open the brief and review caseA retry creates two operations
An accepted request is replayed after a network delay. The service creates another operation although only one was requested.
Open the brief and review caseThe browser reports a refused success
The interface confirms a record that the server rejected. The two parts of the journey show incompatible states.
Open the brief and review caseStyling removes structural landmarks
Headings become visually bold text. A field retains its appearance but loses its label after template integration.
Open the brief and review caseA defect cannot be reproduced
An issue report contains only a screenshot, without version, input or steps. The expected behaviour remains unclear.
Open the brief and review caseCopy promises an excluded service
Broad commercial wording suggests a service specifically excluded by the actual offer.
Open the brief and review caseThe canonical targets another intent
A distinct service page points its canonical to a different service while links and sitemap still present it as independent.
Open the brief and review caseA correction updates one occurrence
A price changes in the page body while the old value remains in a FAQ, document or another language.
Open the brief and review caseA rate lacks comparable populations
Two dashboards show conversion rate, but one uses visitors and another sessions. Their denominators differ.
Open the brief and review caseTwo approvals contradict each other
Two people approve different versions of one deliverable. The released file cannot be connected to a clear decision.
Open the brief and review caseDone without an examinable outcome
A backlog item is marked done but describes only a feature. The team cannot connect it to an expected result or product decision.
Open the brief and review caseRecovery misses attachments
A backup restores pages and headings but linked documents and some media remain unavailable.
Open the brief and review caseUse a review case
How should the first case be chosen?
Start with an important task or observed difficulty. Choose the nearest case, prepare test data and record the expected result before testing. Adapt the check when your context differs and document that difference.
Does one successful result validate the whole brief?
It validates only the test under the recorded conditions. Keep device, version and input data. Check an error and a neighbouring case next; other functions, languages and situations are not automatically covered.