before it’s tested.
The Clarity Review is a focused evaluation of your public-facing presence—designed to identify where credibility is brittle, messaging is unclear, and structure fails under scrutiny.
This is not a sales call and not a redesign proposal. It’s a structured review of how your website and messaging perform when read skeptically and under time pressure.
We examine
- How quickly your identity is understood
- Where proof is missing, vague, or misplaced
- Where language can be misread or challenged
- Whether public surfaces align
- How the site behaves when someone is trying to verify—not browse
We do not
- Push a template or “package”
- Sell aesthetics or trends
- Write a press response
- Ask you to trust “vibes”
You’ll leave with specific, actionable clarity—focused on structure, proof placement, and credibility under scrutiny.
Credibility weak points
Specific places where ambiguity, inconsistency, or missing proof can weaken trust when attention spikes.
Proof placement map
Where evidence should live so claims can be verified quickly—without hunting.
Language durability notes
Phrases and positioning that invite misreading—and how to tighten them so they hold up under skeptical reading.
Structural next steps
What to clarify, move, remove, or reinforce to make legitimacy visible without explanation.
Candidates, reporters, lawyers, nonprofit organizations, and public-facing leaders—where credibility is judged fast, and confusion has consequences.
Signals you need this
- Your site feels “fine,” but it doesn’t feel definitive
- Your positioning changes depending on who is describing it
- Proof exists, but it’s buried or scattered
- You’re entering a higher-visibility season (campaigns, cases, press, growth, controversy risk)
What it prevents
- Credibility loss before a response is possible
- Speculation filling information gaps
- Old language resurfacing without context
- Vague positioning being interpreted as evasive
If your work is public, your website is evidence. The Clarity Review shows you where that evidence holds—and where it doesn’t.