Independent development sample · Huy · 30 September 2026

A small, repeatable
portfolio link review.

Six public destinations from Facility Design Studio’s homepage, organized into an inspectable local manifest. Switch on practice faults to see exactly what the checks catch.

No automatic network requestsNo dependenciesNo live-site verdict
Observation is separate from diagnosis. The retrieved homepage text uses “Visit Website” for these six links. Full accessible names, visual context, destination availability and keyboard behavior were not tested. This sample does not claim any published link is broken or inaccessible.
Choose the review dataset
6fixture records
0local review flags
Not runlive HTTP / accessibility checks

Link manifest

Flags ask for human review. They never change a website.

Exact published observations and sources

Read-only text/link inspection on 2026-09-30. The source page is undated; this is the observation date, not its publication date. Descriptive demo labels below are our own link text, not a claim about Facility’s rendered accessible names.

RecordExtracted link textObserved destination

External links open only after your explicit click. Clicking them leaves the offline sample and may contact those public websites. The sample itself does not fetch, ping, scan, submit forms, load remote assets or use analytics.

What the checks can and cannot tell you

Checks flag empty demo labels, malformed or disallowed URLs, and repeated normalized destinations. Duplicate URLs may be intentional; an owner must decide. Passing these checks only means the local records meet these rules.

There is no verification of HTTP status, redirects, DNS, TLS, page content, WCAG conformance, visible labels, ARIA names or production behavior. There are no known correct replacement destinations to apply.

Practice changes: F01 gets an empty demo label; F02 points to F01’s destination; F03 gets a deliberately invalid javascript: URL. The original source manifest never changes. Return to Published references to reset.

Could this save review time?

Illustrative workload assumption: six links × two minutes of manual review = 12 minutes per review; three reviews a month = 36 minutes. Those are not measured Facility figures or a net-savings claim.

This fixture cannot replace opening destinations or checking accessibility. Any actual saving would need a timed comparison that includes setup, false-positive review and the live checks still required. No revenue or cash saving is claimed.