Launch scorecard · a-j-roofing-solutions
HUMAN_REVIEW
Generated for page rendered 5/30/2026, 8:20:24 PM · read existing outputs.
Hard gates (must pass to ship)
| Fact verify (identity) | PASS |
| Density (no wall) | PASS · about 79w / max block 30w (≤320 about total / ≤90 any block) |
| Mobile veto | PASS · STALE |
Site quality (audit-v4)
| Composite / grade | 89 · A · SHIP · STALE |
| Issues | P0: 0 · P1: 4 · P2: 1 |
Advisory
| Persona-copy quality | 72/100 · would-contact: YES |
| Performance | MISSING no performance/Lighthouse field (not blocking this step) |
👁 Human eyes needed (5)
- mobile/audit-v4: STALE (older than the live page — re-run)
- audit-v4: 4 P1 issue(s) to review
- persona gap: The copy doesn't distinguish planned upgrades from emergency repairs. For my job ('get the roof sorted properly' as a planned project), reframe the scoping detail to show they handle both: 'Whether you're planning ahead or need urgent repairs, enquiries are scoped around roof type, access, condition, timing...' This signals they understand my kind of project.
- persona gap: The 'signed off in writing' promise is incomplete — it doesn't tell me what that includes. For 'done properly' to mean something, complete it: 'signed off in writing: scope, warranty, compliance.' This makes the accountability concrete for MY job.
- persona gap: The CTA assumes I know what 'send the roof details' means. For a planned-upgrade buyer comparing options, make the process clearer: 'Free written quote — we'll walk you through options based on your roof type, condition, and budget.' This removes friction.