Service — UX audit that names the structural problems, not the icon choices.

We audit six categories, in priority order:

• Information architecture and flow integrity. Are the primary flows actually the primary flows? Where do users get stuck or drop off? Is the IA holding the current scope, or is it about to fall over?
• Role and permission model. Do admins, end users, viewers, and customers each get a coherent view of the product, or are they sharing screens that weren't designed for them?
• State and edge-case coverage. Empty states. Loading states. Error states. Permission-denied. Partial-data. The 80% of design work that decides whether a product feels solid or shaky.
• Design system fragmentation. Where are components inconsistent? Where is the team rebuilding variants of things that already exist? What's the cost of leaving the fragmentation in place vs. fixing it?
• Accessibility. Contrast ratios, keyboard navigation, screen-reader semantics, dynamic type support. The legal floor, plus the practical wins.
• Cross-surface coherence. If the product spans web, mobile, and admin, do the surfaces feel like one product or three?

One deliverable: a structured report (PDF, Notion, or Figma, your call) with:

• Executive summary. Two pages. The five most important findings, with business impact named.
• Prioritised problem list. Every issue we found, sorted by impact and effort. Each with a clear fix path and a rough effort estimate (small / medium / large).
• Annotated screenshots. Where applicable. We point at the actual screens, not abstract diagrams.
• Recommended next steps. Either a phased fix plan your team can execute, or a scoped redesign proposal if the audit finds structural rebuild is the right call.
• 1-hour walkthrough call. We walk your team through the findings live and answer questions.

What you don't get: a 40-slide deck, generic best practices, or a recommendation to “invest in design research.”

Often. If the audit surfaces a structural problem you want to tackle, the audit fee is credited against the cost of the follow-on sprint. That keeps the audit honest, we don't recommend a sprint unless one is actually warranted.

If you don't want to work with us after the audit, that's fine too. The report stands alone, you can hand it to an in-house team or another agency.

The audit catalogues issues across six categories. The depth of each depends on the audit scope:

• Information architecture and flow integrity. Are primary flows actually primary? Where do users drop off? What flows exist that nobody designed, built incrementally over features? Is the IA holding scope or about to fall over?
• Role and permission model. Do admins, end users, viewers, and customers each get coherent views, or are they sharing screens that weren't designed for them? Permission visibility, error handling, action availability per role.
• State and edge-case coverage. Empty, loading, error, partial-data, permission-denied, rate-limit, stress states. We check every primary flow against this catalogue.
• Design system fragmentation. Where are components inconsistent? Where is the team rebuilding variants of things that exist? What's the cost of leaving fragmentation vs. fixing it?
• Accessibility. Contrast ratios, keyboard navigation, focus indicators, screen-reader semantics, dynamic type. Quick pass for WCAG AA; deeper if the product serves accessibility-critical users (healthcare, government).
• Cross-surface coherence. If the product spans web, mobile, admin, do the surfaces feel like one product or three? Where does coherence break?

Across most audits, the same structural problems appear with predictable frequency:

• State-blindness. 90% of audits surface significant gaps in state coverage, empty states, error states, or partial-data states designed inadequately.
• Role conflation. 70% of multi-role products have at least one shared surface that wasn't designed for one of its users.
• Design system drift. Most products older than 18 months show component fragmentation in critical surfaces (forms, tables, modals).
• Permission opacity. 60% of B2B products have at least one common action that fails silently for the wrong role, with no explanation.
• Onboarding cliff. First-time experience designed quickly during early launch and never revisited.
• Admin afterthought. Customer-facing surfaces polished; admin surfaces functional but ugly. Increasingly a deal-blocker in enterprise procurement reviews.

Knowing these patterns up front lets us audit efficiently, we know where to look without spending a week discovering it.

Roughly two-thirds of our audits convert into follow-on sprint engagements. The other third either hand the report to an in-house team to execute, or find the structural issues less critical than expected.

When the audit surfaces structural problems (architecture, role model, system fragmentation), a follow-on sprint usually makes sense. The audit fee is credited against the sprint, so the diagnostic doesn't double-charge.

When the audit surfaces surface-level issues that an in-house team can address with focused work, we say so. We don't propose a sprint unless one is actually warranted.

When the audit surfaces problems that are real but not Lumixel-shaped (deep research need, brand identity work, frontend engineering issues), we'll name what the right next step is, even when that next step is hiring someone else.