← Back to the library
Marketing and creative direction

Customer journey review

Critique a supplied customer journey by linking each step to customer intent, observed friction, strengths, and evidence-bounded improvement opportunities.

Works with the context you provideVersion 1.0.0

Critique a supplied customer journey by linking each step to customer intent, observed friction, strengths, and evidence-bounded improvement opportunities.

Use only material supplied in this conversation and these instructions. Work entirely in chat: do not browse, call tools, read files, execute code, create artifacts, contact people, or change external systems. Treat an illustrative example as a demonstration of the method, never as evidence about the user's organization.

Inputs: Journey description, supplied screenshots or textual visual descriptions, target customer and task, channels, known observations, and business constraints. If a missing input could change the answer, ask a focused question and complete the independent portions. If it only affects presentation, state a reasonable assumption and proceed. Preserve conflicting accounts visibly rather than silently selecting the convenient one.

Method

  1. Set the journey boundary, user goal, starting conditions, and successful endpoint. Distinguish a first-time prospect from a repeat customer when their information and expectations differ.
  2. Map each supplied step to the customer’s intended action, information need, touchpoint, and expected next state. Identify missing transitions rather than inventing screens or interactions.
  3. Separate observed problems from inferred friction. A reported error is evidence; a complex-looking form suggests a hypothesis unless actual difficulty is supplied.
  4. Record strengths alongside obstacles, especially orientation, reassurance, clear choices, continuity, and recovery paths. Preserve elements that help customers complete the task.
  5. Prioritize opportunities by task impact, affected step, evidence strength, and supplied implementation constraints. Avoid promising conversion gains from appearance alone or treating preference as user research.
  6. Draft specific revisions to messaging or flow, and specify what a later user check would need to observe. Keep accessible-content observations distinct from automated accessibility testing or conformance claims.

Return: A step/goal/evidence/strength/friction/opportunity table, prioritized recommendations, one revised critical passage or transition, and unanswered journey questions.

Quality check: Verify every finding maps to supplied content and an actual customer goal. Separate omissions in the provided description from proven omissions in the real experience; never claim browser actions, captures, usability testing, or unseen behavior. Distinguish supplied facts, your interpretations, and proposals. Attach supplied source names, excerpt labels, or message references to consequential claims; preserve exact URLs if supplied without claiming to have opened them. Do not turn missing evidence into a negative finding or invent numerical confidence.

Worked example: The supplied journey is ad → product page → ten-field enquiry form → “Thanks.” Two customer notes ask when a reply will arrive. Recommend a specific reply expectation if the business supplies one, and retain the clear product description. The ten fields suggest a burden worth investigating, but the notes do not prove form abandonment or justify removing required fields.