“One round of revisions” sounds clear until someone asks for another page, a different platform, or a new audience. A revision changes agreed work so it meets the brief. New scope changes the brief itself. The distinction depends on your signed proposal, so settle it with a written comparison rather than an argument about whether the request feels small.
Start with the approved baseline
Collect the signed page list, content responsibilities, approved design direction, functionality list, and review schedule. Then write the requested change in one sentence. “Replace the service-page headline with approved copy” is different from “create a second service page for another market.” The first may be part of copy review; the second adds an asset with its own content and QA.
Check whether the work fails an agreed acceptance test. A form that does not send an inquiry to the specified address is a defect. Asking the same form to route leads by region is a new behavior unless regional routing was specified. A mobile layout that hides the primary action may be a correction; adding a new interactive calculator is not a layout correction.
Use three questions before assigning a price
- Was the requested outcome already described? Look for a deliverable or acceptance criterion, not a casual mention in a meeting.
- Does the request replace existing work or add another deliverable? Swapping an approved image is different from licensing a new photo collection and redesigning several sections around it.
- What downstream work changes? A new field can require validation, CRM mapping, privacy-copy review, analytics, and retesting. Estimate the whole chain.
Both parties can act reasonably and still read vague scope differently. Record the interpretation, decision, price effect, and schedule effect in the project thread. For a genuine change, ask for a written change order before the work begins. For an in-scope correction, identify the original requirement and the test that will show it is fixed.
Make review rounds usable
Consolidate comments from one decision-maker. Label each comment “correction,” “preference within current direction,” or “new requirement.” Set a date for feedback and identify what can still be changed after approval. This keeps a later executive opinion from silently reopening every earlier decision.
For example, your brief might say: “The quoted review round covers edits to the approved layout and supplied copy. New pages, integrations, or a change in platform require written scope, price, and schedule approval.” Adapt that sentence to the actual deal; a blog post cannot define your contract.
ARCHV scope and next step
ARCHV’s website service page says pages, layouts, responsibilities, review rounds, and extra work belong in the project proposal. It does not make every future request part of the original price. If you are comparing vague proposals before signing, use the website quote comparison to flag missing revision terms.
A public web-design discussion about scope creep illustrates why buyers and providers need the same baseline. It is a discussion of experiences, not evidence that any particular agency routinely overcharges.