Generated code still needs ownership
AI can accelerate layout, copy, and implementation, but it cannot see every production condition automatically. It may generate duplicate patterns, unnecessary scripts, placeholder links, inaccessible controls, or code that works in one viewport and breaks in another. The right response is not to reject AI; it is to establish a repeatable acceptance check.
Keep the person responsible for the site in control. Protect the working version, inspect the reported problem, make the smallest confirmed change, and verify the same page afterward. A prompt should never be treated as proof that a change is safe.
Check what visitors experience, not only whether the build succeeds
A successful deployment proves that the project compiled and reached the server. It does not prove that the main content appears quickly, that the layout stays stable, that buttons have understandable names, or that a form gives useful feedback. Test the public URL on a mobile viewport and follow the most important visitor path from arrival to contact or conversion.
Lighthouse can provide repeatable lab checks for performance, accessibility, SEO, and code health. Its results are evidence, not a complete verdict. Performance varies between runs, and automated accessibility checks cannot replace manual testing with keyboard navigation, screen readers, zoom, and real users.
- Open the homepage and the most important service or product page on mobile.
- Follow every primary navigation and conversion link.
- Check browser errors and confirm whether they come from your code or a third party.
- Review large images, unused code, layout movement, and slow main content.
Accessibility problems are common and often concrete
The 2025 WebAIM Million study detected more than 50 million accessibility errors across one million homepages. Its six most common categories—including low contrast, missing image alternatives, missing form labels, and empty links or buttons—accounted for 96% of detected errors. That research covers the web broadly; it does not prove that AI-generated sites are worse. It does show why common interface details deserve a deliberate check.
Start with visible, verifiable issues. Can someone understand each form field without relying only on placeholder text? Do buttons and links have readable names? Does focus remain visible? Can important information be understood without color alone? These checks improve usability while reducing avoidable exclusion.
Create a release ritual, not a one-time rescue
The strongest workflow is short enough to repeat: review representative pages, fix confirmed issues in priority order, retest, and save the result with the release. Run it again after major design changes, new integrations, or new conversion paths.
No automated report can certify that a website is perfect, completely secure, fully accessible, or guaranteed to rank. It can make the launch decision more informed by showing what was checked, what needs attention, and what could not be verified.