# Astro CMS editorial evaluation

An editable acceptance sheet from WAYF. This is a test template, not evidence that a product has passed.

Project:
Evaluation date:
CMS and version/plan:
Astro version and adapter:
Hosting/rendering/cache configuration:
Evaluator and editorial role:

## Fictional example

Use a campaign page with a headline, image, shared CTA and second-language version. Agree the expected editing and publication rights before testing. Keep credentials and private client material out of the evidence.

| Task | Expected result | Observed result / evidence | Pass / partial / not demonstrated | Configuration/custom work and owner |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Edit | Allowed fields and block order can be changed; forbidden changes are denied | | | |
| Preview | Correct draft, references and locale; unauthorised access denied | | | |
| Review | Reviewer can inspect change; publishing rights match policy | | | |
| Localise | Translation and fallback match agreed rules; publication scope is clear | | | |
| Recover | Earlier content restored and public URL verified after build/cache update | | | |

## Record the implementation boundaries

- Saved versus unsaved preview behaviour:
- Reference and media version behaviour:
- Native, configured, custom and manual steps:
- Failed build or webhook behaviour:
- Cache invalidation and draft isolation:
- Content recovery versus deployment rollback versus database/media backup:
- Accessibility checks for the actual editorial users:
- Seats, locales, environments, API/media/build usage and paid feature requirements:
- Exported content, relationships, assets and import responsibilities:
- Open questions, owner and decision:

Never mark an untested feature as absent. Repeat the same exercise with each finalist using comparable roles, content and hosting assumptions.