SCAN TO COMPREHEND / SOURCE PREFLIGHT
https://jobfitiq.com/ (rendered DOM snapshot)
Audit date:
Explore the experimental attention heatmap for this capture →
A source check followed by questions for rendered and reader review.
Structural friction risk index
0 flagged source issue(s) · 4 narrow strength(s) · low confidence
Experimental, uncalibrated source heuristic (s2c-source-heuristic-v1). This is not measured cognitive load, gaze, comprehension, or an accessibility grade. A zero means only that these source checks found no flagged issue.
What is this about?
Check that the page title and opening summary answer the reader's question.
Where is the answer?
Use this source heading map as one entry point; inspect the rendered page too.
What does it mean?
Ask a reader to explain the answer and its caveats. This audit cannot measure that.
RENDERED PAGE WALKTHROUGH
Can a candidate understand the product and inspect proof before joining the waitlist?
https://jobfitiq.com/ · Rendered DOM; desktop captures at 1280 × 720 and a mobile capture at 390 × 844 · Callouts are review observations, not measured gaze.
First viewport · orient and choose a path
- strength
1. Purpose and proof route are visible
Observed: The headline and summary explain a job-specific candidate evidence brief, and a link to Paul's infographic résumé appears in the first viewport.
Likely task effect: A proof-seeking visitor has a direct route to a finished example. This effect has not been tested with readers.
Check: Ask new visitors where they would click to inspect a finished résumé.
- review
2. Competing first actions
Observed: The filled waitlist button carries more visual weight than the adjacent résumé-example link.
Likely task effect: A visitor evaluating the product may notice sign-up before inspecting the evidence. This is a hypothesis.
Suggestion: Consider giving the finished example equal emphasis for visitors who are not ready to sign up.
Check: Record first clicks for the task of finding proof before joining.
Transformation studio · understand the starting state
- strength
1. Inputs are grouped as steps
Observed: The studio places résumé upload and job description in two numbered groups with short supporting labels.
Likely task effect: This may make the required inputs easier to find and compare. Reader success is unmeasured.
Check: Ask visitors to identify the two inputs required for their own brief.
- review
2. Sample state needs an explicit label
Observed: The upload area says 'Paul Woll Resume.docx' is ready to analyze, and the job description already contains a role, without a prominent shared 'sample data' label.
Likely task effect: New visitors may be unsure whether they are seeing a demo or their own current inputs. This is a hypothesis.
Suggestion: Label the preloaded résumé and role as an example state and clarify how to replace them.
Check: Ask first-time visitors whose data is currently in the studio and what happens when they start.
Live sample · inspect claims in context
- review
1. Numeric signals need visible definitions
Observed: The preview shows '92 role fit' and '95 research → prod' without a visible scale or explanation in this view.
Likely task effect: Readers may assign different meanings to those numbers. This remains untested.
Suggestion: Add a concise scale or method cue beside each score, with a route to the supporting evidence.
Check: Ask readers what 92 and 95 mean, then compare answers with the intended definitions.
- strength
2. Requirements connect to evidence
Observed: The preview groups Production ML, Python/data pipelines, and Cloud/DevOps under a 'Requirement → Evidence' heading.
Likely task effect: The structure may support targeted comparison before a close read. This effect is not measured.
Check: Ask a recruiter to locate the strongest and weakest supported requirement.
Mobile first viewport · check the proof route
- strength
1. The example survives the narrow layout
Observed: At 390 × 844, both the waitlist button and Paul's infographic résumé link remain in the first viewport.
Likely task effect: A visitor can still choose a proof route without opening the menu. This effect is untested.
Check: Ask mobile visitors to locate a completed example before signing up.
- review
2. The headline takes substantial vertical space
Observed: The large headline wraps across five lines in the 390-pixel view.
Likely task effect: It may delay the detailed explanation for visitors who start below the header. This is a hypothesis.
Suggestion: Compare this version with a slightly shorter or smaller mobile heading while preserving the meaning.
Check: Observe whether new mobile visitors can explain the product and find the example after a brief first view.
Source heading map
- H1 Turn experience into instant relevance.
- H2 Build your role-fit story
- H2 From document to decision in three focused steps.
- H3 Bring your story
- H3 Target the opportunity
- H3 Make fit visible
- H2 Ten seconds first. Evidence when needed.
- H3 Paul Woll
- H4 REQUIREMENT → EVIDENCE
- H2 One evidence graph. Three legitimate résumé products.
- H2 Less guessing. Better conversations.
- H3 Show the value behind the résumé.
- H3 See evidence before the interview.
- H2 Explore the concept now. Join the waitlist for launch.
Flagged issues
No issue flagged by the source checklist.
Suggested fixes
No automatic suggestion for this source.
Narrow strengths
- labeled_sections Source headings provide named entry points.
- page_heading The full page has a level-one heading.
- descriptive_links No generic link labels were detected in source text.
- image_alternatives Every source image has an alt attribute or Markdown alternative; quality still needs review.
Checks still needed
- Inspect rendered desktop and mobile layout, including visual density and text-graphic proximity.
- Ask representative readers to find a fact and explain it; record task success separately from this index.