KENYA · GUIDE 0592 · EDITION 4.7
Website speed audit in Kenya: Delivery Planning and Acceptance Checks
Editorial update: 28 October 2026 · Business planning reference · Review scope
Plan delivery around observable acceptance
Plan the handover and acceptance record for website speed audit, using the specific checkpoints for the example offer.
This is a planning reference for website speed audit. The order below is an invented teaching case. It is not a completed customer job, an operating approval or a prediction of demand or earnings.
The example offer and its boundary
Fictional speed review SPD-92 examines home, services and contact pages with three comparable mobile lab runs per page. Output is nine saved reports, a settings log and three prioritised opportunities. No performance score or improvement is invented; live optimisation and promised search rankings are excluded.
This page is a work-control sheet. It does not teach a qualified trade, prescribe a food process, approve equipment or replace the appropriate technical procedure. Confirm who has the competence and authority for any specialist task.
Prepare the control record
| Stage to schedule | Checkpoint from the scoped example | Actual record to complete |
|---|---|---|
| Fix conditions | Compare like conditions; a fast desktop run cannot substitute for mobile evidence. | Responsible person; evidence/reference; measured result; pass/hold decision; correction owner |
| Capture baseline | Report representative results and spread, not only the best score. | Responsible person; evidence/reference; measured result; pass/hold decision; correction owner |
| Separate field data | Missing field data is unknown, not proof that users have no problems. | Responsible person; evidence/reference; measured result; pass/hold decision; correction owner |
| Inspect causes | A tool suggestion becomes a scoped hypothesis, not an automatic instruction to remove business-critical scripts. | Responsible person; evidence/reference; measured result; pass/hold decision; correction owner |
| Deliver retest plan | Client approves any implementation separately; no before/after claim without actual repeat evidence. | Responsible person; evidence/reference; measured result; pass/hold decision; correction owner |
Keep accepted and unresolved work separate
| Issue to watch for | Evidence question |
|---|---|
| Scores vary widely | Compare run settings/cache and third-party activity. |
| Field data disagrees | Check user period/devices versus lab conditions. |
| Suggested removal breaks enquiries | Check resource function and staging dependency. |
The issues above are prompts to investigate, not a diagnosis of a real defect. Record what was observed, isolate the affected output where appropriate, and refer the technical decision to the competent person or approved process. Do not copy a hypothetical response into a real incident without assessment.
Reconcile the handover
Use the agreed charging basis: audit or optimization scope. Record ordered, completed, accepted, held and rejected output separately. Track rework time, changed scope, credits and collection dates against the same order reference. Client approves any implementation separately; no before/after claim without actual repeat evidence.
Proceed within a defined trial limit only after the buyer's acceptance, actual full costs and collections are recorded, and the guide's unresolved checks are addressed. The final business-specific checkpoint is: Client approves any implementation separately; no before/after claim without actual repeat evidence. Otherwise record a hold, revision or stop decision in file 10.
References and their limits
Introduction to Lighthouse — Chrome for Developers
Automated audit execution/report export, not complete security/accessibility certification. Reference check recorded 2026-10-26.
Why lab and field data can differ — web.dev
Lab/field interpretation; no measured client performance supplied. Reference check recorded 2026-10-26.
Rights Of A Data Subject
Kenyan privacy principles and data minimisation; not a complete compliance assessment. Reference check recorded 2026-10-26.
Recorded references support only the scope stated beside them. They do not prove current supplier stock, a local quotation, actual buyer demand, operator competence or the feasibility of this particular business. Later editorial changes do not refresh earlier source-check dates.
Prepared by Business Starter Guides using AI-assisted drafting and desk editorial checks. Independent operator trials and specialist certification are not claimed. See the editorial method for the review scope.
Editorial method and evidence limits