Evidence before change
Facts vs. assumptions in a church website review
A public website can show that a visitor encountered missing, contradictory, inaccessible, or outdated information. It usually cannot prove why the issue exists, who caused it, what the church intended, or which replacement product would solve it.
Use the no-explanation test
Write the observation so that a person who disagrees with your recommendation can still verify what happened. Remove motive, blame, diagnosis, and product language from the first sentence.
Observable fact
“On August 2, the homepage displayed Sunday worship at 10:30, while the Plan Your Visit page displayed 10:45.”
Unsupported assumption
“The staff forgot to update the website and visitors are confused.”
Three columns are better than one conclusion
- Observed: the exact public page, action, result, device, and date.
- Cannot conclude: intent, internal burden, cause, conversion loss, provider fault, or the correct replacement.
- Must verify: authoritative answer, responsible owner, current process, affected audience, and acceptable correction.
Common assumptions to remove
- “Visitors are confused.” Record the conflicting paths and test with a real person instead.
- “The volunteer is overwhelmed.” Ask the responsible owner; public pages cannot prove workload.
- “The platform is broken.” Identify the specific reproducible public behavior and whether it is content, configuration, access, ownership, or provider-related.
- “A rebuild is necessary.” First test whether the smallest correction, connection, redirect, ownership change, or retirement solves the problem.
- “The church is losing attendance or giving.” Do not infer private outcomes from a public observation.
Record evidence without collecting private data
Use the public URL, date, device, screenshot when permitted, visible text, link destination, and reproducible steps. Do not submit sensitive prayer requests, children's information, donor details, private member records, credentials, or real counseling information merely to test a pathway.
Move from evidence to a decision
After the church verifies the authoritative answer and responsible owner, choose:
- Keep: the current path is useful and responsibly maintained.
- Connect: the information or action should move through one authoritative source or clearer handoff.
- Change: the path needs a bounded correction supported by the evidence.
Set a verification owner and date instead of forcing a technology decision.
Next step
Use the 30-second service-information test, build the ownership map, or see the Founder-led Public Pathway Review.