LongevityX Pre-Launch Site Audit

Your lead forms may not be capturing anything

This is the item from the Netlify check above, and it’s first on this list for a reason: the evidence points to submissions landing nowhere, while visitors see a success message regardless. Affected forms: Apply, the one minute assessment, the blood test waitlist, the Vault email gate, and the homepage contact form. That’s the entire lead capture surface of the business, so it’s worth confirming before anything else moves forward.

The Meta Pixel needs a decision, then a consent gate

On a health site, sending a quiz’s health related recommendation to an ad platform is exactly the pattern behind a recent wave of US healthcare pixel lawsuits and regulator action. I’m flagging this because it’s worth a quick check with your side before launch, not because I’m offering legal advice, I’m not a lawyer. There’s also no mention of Meta, Facebook, or its cookies anywhere in your privacy policy right now, so the site is tracking people with a tool it doesn’t disclose.

Once you’ve confirmed whether it’s there on purpose (see the Netlify check above), the fix itself is straightforward: gate it behind consent, keep it off the health pages, and add it to the privacy policy.

The SMS opt-in is missing on your forms, which will get your text campaign rejected

Good news first, since this was the specific thing I went in to check: the required A2P privacy policy clause survived the rebuild, word for word. The “Required Disclosure, Mobile Information Sharing” language is intact on your live privacy policy. Don’t touch it.

The gap is on the forms themselves, and carriers check the actual form when they approve a text campaign. The Apply form asks for a phone number but has no SMS consent checkbox, no opt in language, no message frequency or rates text, and no STOP or HELP near the submit button. The Blood Test page has partial language but is still missing the checkbox and STOP or HELP. And no form links to your Privacy Policy or Terms next to its submit button, those links currently only live in the homepage footer.

Without an unchecked consent checkbox, explicit opt in wording, “Msg and data rates may apply,” a stated message frequency, STOP and HELP, and Privacy plus Terms links beside each submit button, the SMS campaign will get rejected and your texts won’t send. That was the whole point of the original A2P work, so it’s worth closing this loop.

The move off Framer left some SEO loose ends

Four old URLs from the Framer site now return “not found” with no redirect, and each was live and indexed as recently as mid March. Worth a redirect to the nearest new page for each, before the ranking they built up gets forfeited. It’s free to fix, and most valuable while it’s still fresh.

The blood test and Vault promises don’t quite match what happens next

The $299 blood test is shown as a buyable price five separate times on the site, but the button underneath it lands on a waitlist, and that’s never labelled before the click. It’s worth either making it purchasable, or relabelling every “Start With a Blood Test” button so it says what actually happens next. Right now it’s the entry point of your whole offer ladder, and it ends in a wall at the exact moment someone is most interested.

The Vault lead magnet has a couple of small leaks too: three of the guides are already free and ungated on the homepage, so they bypass your email capture entirely. The page promises “we’ll email you a copy too” but there’s no delivery email actually built for that. And the follow up email sequence’s only call to action points at a subdomain that doesn’t resolve.

A few things worth a quick check with your side before launch

A single PSA marker on the site sits under a heading that reads “Cancer Screening,” which implies a screening service that isn’t really what’s being offered. There are also a couple of phrases worth a second look: “a complete picture of your health” (no single blood panel really is), and the “MD‑Reviewed” claim, which is stated plainly on one page and hedged to “medical review where applicable” on another. A couple of the lead magnet titles read more like medical claims than marketing too, things like “burn more fat while you sleep.”

The Terms page is worth a closer look as well. Right now it’s essentially a no refund policy rather than a full terms of service, and it includes a clause stating that disputing a charge is itself a breach of contract. A clause that tries to waive someone’s right to dispute a charge with their card issuer generally doesn’t hold up, and it’s the kind of thing card networks flag. I’d genuinely get this one in front of your counsel before you start charging cards through it. It also means your privacy policy’s line pointing to “our Terms for full SMS terms” currently points at a page with no SMS terms on it.

The site currently fails a WCAG 2.2 AA accessibility check

One thing here is more than cosmetic: when someone submits a form, the button disappears and a confirmation panel appears, but nothing announces that to a screen reader. A blind visitor genuinely can’t tell whether their application went through. That’s the one I’d prioritise.

The good news: the whole list is about three hours of additive fixes on a genuinely solid base, not a rebuild.

Two small security items worth closing before a full redeploy

Your repo, not the live site, has a live GoHighLevel webhook URL hardcoded into the page’s JavaScript. It’s unauthenticated, so anyone who views the page source could push fake leads into your CRM. It isn’t on the live site today, but if the repo gets deployed as is, it becomes public. Worth treating that webhook as compromised, regenerating it, and moving the lead flow server side.

There’s also no Content Security Policy on the site. The basic security headers are there, and Netlify adds HSTS automatically, but a CSP is worth adding once the Meta Pixel decision above is settled, since a CSP is part of what would have stopped that pixel loading unchallenged in the first place.

Responsive text sizing has a real bug on phones

Every one of the 22 fluid text sizes on the site has already hit its minimum size on phone width screens, so none of them are actually scaling anymore, and one homepage heading actually gets bigger as the screen gets smaller, which is a genuine bug, visible right around 640px width. The logo can also run past the edge of the screen at 320px width. Worth a dedicated pass.

The design has drifted a little page to page

Because each page was styled in its own session, small inconsistencies have crept in: buttons change weight and height between pages, the nav bar changes height by close to 30px page to page so the page visibly jumps as you navigate, and the same text sizes get redefined up to four times across the file. The colour palette, though, is impressively consistent across all eight pages, genuinely well done there. This is really a “consolidate into one shared stylesheet” job, worth scoping separately.

Images are unoptimised

There’s about 1.3MB of raw JPEGs on the site with no WebP versions, and several without lazy loading. Worth compressing and converting given your audience skews 40 to 70 and is often on older devices and slower connections, page speed matters more for them than average.

A small brand nuance worth a conversation

Your logo wordmark is set in a high contrast Didone serif, the page headings are in a softer Fraunces serif, and the favicon is plain Georgia, so there are three different serif voices in play. The wordmark is genuinely the most premium asset on the site, and the current heading font undercuts it a little. Also worth knowing: the favicon is an SVG, and iOS ignores SVGs for home screen icons, so it needs a PNG version alongside it.