review

UI review findings are generated by feeding screenshot evidence, comparison data, and blocker notes into a review process that classifies regressions, risks, coverage gaps, and requirement mismatches. This replaces guesswork with evidence-backed UX triage.

A requirement parity check compares captured screenshots against design requirements to identify mismatches, density loss, interaction gaps, and state differences. It confirms whether the implemented web or mobile UI matches the intended design specifications.

Classify UI regressions by analyzing visual QA screenshots alongside comparison data and blocker notes. This separates confirmed regressions from intentional changes, density loss, interaction mismatches, and state gaps for clear product team reporting.

Yes, screenshot analysis identifies missing modals, incomplete viewports, and missing routes as coverage gaps. By reviewing capture run evidence, you call out areas lacking sufficient data that affect overall review confidence.

Performing evidence-based UX triage after a capture run requires comparison data, report HTML, screenshots, and blocker notes. These inputs allow the review process to distinguish actual regressions from intentional changes and coverage gaps.

Avoid relying on screenshot-backed comparison reports when coverage gaps exist, such as missing routes, missing modals, or incomplete viewports. Insufficient evidence lowers confidence and prevents accurate classification of regressions and requirement mismatches.