← Work

INDEPENDENT PRODUCT EXPERIMENT · ARCHIVED · 2026

RebrandCheck

Helping agencies catch rebrand mistakes before clients do.

RebrandCheck is an archived independent product experiment exploring how agencies could find legacy brand references before client handoff. This case preserves the design, build and QA process; it does not claim verified demand, customer adoption, revenue or commercial growth.

Role
Independent Product Designer
Scope
Research · Product Strategy · UX · UI · AI-assisted Build · QA · Validation
Status
Archived · Independent experiment
View preserved demo ↓ Explore the case ↓
AUDIT INTAKE
OLD BRANDNorthstarNEW BRANDPolarisOLD DOMAINnorthstar.io
RebrandCheck migration-readiness product visual
PRODUCT / VALIDATION MVP
VERIFICATION REPORT
78%NOT READY4 Critical · 7 Warnings · 38 Passed
01 / PROBLEM

A rebrand can look finished and still be wrong.

A new identity may already be live while traces of the previous brand remain hidden across legal pages, domains, email identities, metadata, canonicals, structured data and migration files.

The visible rebrand may be complete. The migration may not be.
POLARISBuilt for what comes next.
/privacyNorthstar Inc.
canonicalnorthstar.io/privacy
Organization schema"Northstar"
support emailsupport@northstar.io
og:site_nameNorthstar
02 / DISCOVERY

I wasn't looking for another website audit tool.

The research focused on three questions: who owns the problem, when it becomes most expensive, and why existing site-audit tools do not fully address it.

WHO

Branding, web and SEO agencies

Teams responsible for delivering a rebrand or website migration.

WHEN

After implementation, before handoff

The point where a small leftover can create disproportionate doubt.

GAP

Website health ≠ migration completeness

Most crawlers optimize for technical health, not identity residue.

OPPORTUNITYMigration-specific QA + evidence + client-ready reporting
MARKET GAP

Website health and migration completeness are different questions.

GENERIC SITE CRAWLER
  • Broken links
  • HTTP errors
  • Missing metadata
  • SEO health
  • Technical page issues
REBRANDCHECK
  • Legacy brand references
  • Old domain residue
  • Previous email identities
  • Outdated metadata
  • Structured-data leftovers
  • Migration-specific evidence

A crawler tells you whether the website works. RebrandCheck asks whether the old identity is actually gone.

03 / PRODUCT DEFINITION

From brand change to verifiable handoff.

I translated the problem into a four-part model: define what changed, inspect where the old identity can survive, structure each finding, and convert the result into a deliverable.

01 / INPUT

What changed?

Old brand
New brand
Old domain
New domain
Old email identity
Known leftovers

02 / CHECK

Where can residue remain?

Brand references
Domains & links
Contact information
Metadata
Canonicals
Structured data
Sitemap

03 / FINDING

What makes an issue useful?

Severity
Location
Detected value
Expected state
Evidence
Recommended action

04 / OUTPUT

What can travel beyond QA?

Executive summary
Prioritized findings
Evidence
Fix direction
Verification report

04 / SCOPE

I deliberately did not build the full SaaS.

NOT IN V0
  • Authentication
  • Subscription billing
  • Team accounts
  • Automated crawler infrastructure
  • AI recommendations
  • Agency workspaces
  • Project history
VALIDATE FIRST

Will agencies care enough about this problem to request an audit and use the result?

V0 INCLUDED

Landing · Audit intake · Sample report · Internal builder · Manual delivery · Direct agency outreach

The first product decision was what not to build.

05 / WORKFLOW

A three-step workflow for migration QA.

01INPUT

Tell us what changed

Brand names, domains, email identities and known migration context.

02CHECK

Run migration QA

Pages, links, metadata, canonicals, schema and sitemap.

03OUTPUT

Fix and prove

Findings, evidence, expected state, actions and a verification report.

INTERACTIVE PRODUCT DEMO

From scan to evidence.

A portfolio simulation of the product interaction using fictional sample data.

PAGESREADY
METADATAREADY
CANONICALSREADY
STRUCTURED DATAREADY
SITEMAPREADY

Illustrative interaction · Sample audit data

06 / INFORMATION DESIGN

An issue is only useful when someone knows what to do next.

A simple “legacy brand found” alert creates another investigation task. Each finding answers six questions immediately: severity, location, detected value, expected state, evidence and recommended action.

CRITICAL/privacy

Legacy legal entity reference

07 / REPORT DESIGN

Designing evidence, not just alerts.

The report had to help designers, developers, project managers and clients understand what remained, what mattered most and what should be fixed.

ILLUSTRATIVE DELIVERABLEPOLARIS

Brand Migration QA

78%NOT READY
4CRITICAL
7WARNINGS
38PASSED
01Old company name/privacyCRITICAL
02Old support email/supportCRITICAL
03Old Organization schema/CRITICAL
Northstar and Polaris are fictional sample brands.
PRIORITY

What should be fixed first?

Severity creates a clear order of attention.

EVIDENCE

Why was this flagged?

The report keeps the underlying proof attached to the issue.

EXPECTED STATE

What should replace it?

The target value reduces ambiguity during implementation.

ACTION

What happens next?

Recommended steps turn diagnosis into execution.

08 / UI SYSTEM

Dense information, designed to stay readable.

SEVERITYCritical
Warning
Passed
TYPEBrand
Domain
Contact
Metadata
Schema
INFORMATIONIssue
Evidence
Action
OUTPUTDesktop
Mobile
Print / PDF
09 / DELIVERY

From product definition to a working experiment.

I used an AI-assisted development workflow to explore the product model and interface system in a working prototype. Product structure, interaction decisions, visual system and QA remained design-owned. Building a prototype did not establish market demand.

AI was implementation leverage, not a substitute for product decisions.
RESEARCH→PRODUCT→UX→UI→BUILD→QA→PROTOTYPE
10 / QUALITY ASSURANCE

Design didn't stop at handoff.

Prototype QA covered responsive layouts, sample reports and local interactions. The checklist below records scope, not proof of live service delivery or customer validation.

QA / SCOPEPROTOTYPE CHECKLIST
DESKTOP RESPONSIVEPROTOTYPE
MOBILE RESPONSIVEPROTOTYPE
AUDIT INTAKEPROTOTYPE
EMAIL DELIVERYNOT VERIFIED
SAMPLE REPORTPROTOTYPE
REPORT BUILDERPROTOTYPE
PRINT / PDFPROTOTYPE
INTERACTIONSPROTOTYPE
LIVE SERVICEARCHIVED

11 / VALIDATION

Explored.
Now archived.

The experiment is archived. Pilot audits, manual delivery and agency outreach were validation ideas, not verified outcomes. Customer adoption, willingness to pay and repeat usage remain unvalidated.

Pilot auditsManual deliveryDirect agency outreachNo signupNo credit card
The next question is not whether the product can be built. It is whether agencies care enough to use it repeatedly.
ARCHIVED · NO VERIFIED COMMERCIAL RESULTS
12 / REFLECTION

What the first version clarified.

LEARNED

The strongest value may not be detection alone. It may be making migration completion visible, explainable and provable.

IF REVISITED

Validate agency demand before investing in automated checks or a larger product.

STILL UNKNOWN

Usage frequency, willingness to pay and whether agencies prefer per-audit delivery or an ongoing workspace.

Build less. Learn faster. Automate what earns the right to exist.

HAVE A COMPLEX PRODUCT?

Let's make it clearer.

Start a project ↗View preserved demo ↓
NEXT PROJECTTLP ↗