Reading the report
Every spread carries a report: a list of everything the rebuild could not reproduce faithfully. It lives inside the rebuilt page, as a collapsible panel on the right, so it travels with the file when you download it.
A spread without its report is refused. Not shown with a warning — refused. If the rebuild comes back missing the report or the panel, Spread renders nothing and tells you which part was absent. A page nobody can check is exactly the thing this feature exists not to produce.
Using it
Hover an item and the elements it refers to are outlined in the page. That is the part worth showing someone: each claim points at its own evidence, so "the sidebar was simplified" is checkable in a second rather than taken on trust.
Collapse it with the toggle at the bottom-right; the page reclaims the space.
The categories
| Category | What it covers |
|---|---|
icon |
An icon with no match in your system. Says which, and what was used instead. |
component |
A pattern with no equivalent — names the fallback recipe. |
layout |
A structural choice made where the source was ambiguous. |
content |
Text, embeds or sections skipped, summarised or sampled. |
behavior |
Interaction that could not be reproduced — search, auth, live data. |
asset |
Images, fonts or video that will not render, and why. |
What the pipeline adds
Most items are the model's own account of its work. A few are added afterwards, and they are deliberately not marked out as different:
- Truncation, when the page was too large to send whole.
- Kept legacy, confirming each element you chose to leave untouched.
- The usage line — which model ran, how many tokens, and the words single-pass, unreviewed.
They look like every other item on purpose. A reader wants one list of what happened, not two sorted by who is confessing.
What a good report looks like
A short report is not a good sign. A rebuild of a real page will approximate things, and a report with two entries usually means the page was trivial or the model was incurious.
The reports worth trusting are specific: "Radar chart — not reproducible without a charting library. Series: Cobalt Strike, InvisiMole, QakBot…" rather than "some charts simplified". If an item is vague enough that you cannot check it, treat it as unverified.
In a demo
Show the report. It is tempting to show only the slider, and the slider is the moment — but the report is the reason anyone should believe the moment. Being first to say where the rebuild bends is what separates this from every "AI redesign" that shows a mockup and never mentions what it faked.