At a glance
All-3 CWV pass status broken down by page template, surfaces which templates pass CWV (LCP + INP + CLS all good simultaneously) vs which fail. The pre-launch readiness gate at template level: a site is launch-ready when every high-traffic template passes CWV, not just the average. Even one failing high-traffic template fails the launch gate; this card surfaces them.
| What it counts | Per template: pass/fail status across all three CWV (LCP < 2,500ms AND INP < 200ms AND CLS < 0.1), plus per-CWV status. Reported with traffic share and dragging metric for failing templates. |
| Sample type | Lab data primarily for synthetic per-template; field data overlay where CrUX URL-level is available for high-traffic templates. |
| The launch-readiness framing | A template passing all 3 CWV is launch-ready; failing any one fails the gate. Recommended pre-launch threshold: 80 percent of templates passing all 3, with no high-traffic template (>10% share) failing. Brands launching below this threshold typically face customer complaints + ranking degradation within 30-60 days post-launch. |
| Reading the template view | Sort by pass-status × traffic share: identify which failing templates dominate the failing-fraction. High-traffic failing templates are the priority focus. Tail-template failures are lower priority but should still be addressed before final launch. |
| Sample size threshold | Lab measurement available for any audited template; field measurement requires sufficient real-user volume per template. |
| Currency | n/a, pass/fail per template + per-CWV detail. |
| Time window | T/7D (lab); 28D rolling (field). |
| Alert trigger | any high-traffic template (>10% share) failing all 3 CWV. |
| Sentiment key | psi_cwv_pass |
| Roles | owner, marketing, operations |
Calculation
Calculated automatically from your Website Performance (PageSpeed + CrUX) data. See the At a glance summary above for what the metric tracks and the worked example below for a typical reading.Worked example
A UK-based BigCommerce fashion store, per-template CWV pass status Wednesday 15 May 26.| Template | LCP | INP | CLS | All-3 | Traffic share | Dragging metric |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Homepage | 4,820ms ❌ | 380ms ❌ | 0.21 ❌ | ❌ | 22% | All three |
| Product detail page | 3,640ms ❌ | 220ms ❌ | 0.18 ❌ | ❌ | 25% | All three |
| Collection page | 4,610ms ❌ | 480ms ❌ | 0.24 ❌ | ❌ | 28% | All three |
| Cart | 2,180ms ✅ | 220ms ❌ | 0.04 ✅ | ❌ | 8% | INP only |
| Checkout step 1 | 1,940ms ✅ | 180ms ✅ | 0.04 ✅ | ✅ | 4% | Passes |
| Checkout step 2 | 1,820ms ✅ | 160ms ✅ | 0.04 ✅ | ✅ | 4% | Passes |
| Search results | 4,200ms ❌ | 460ms ❌ | 0.16 ❌ | ❌ | 8% | All three |
| Account / login | 3,420ms ❌ | 320ms ❌ | 0.14 ❌ | ❌ | 1% | All three |
| Pass rate | 2 of 8 (25%) | Pre-launch fail |
- Only 2 of 8 templates pass all 3 CWV (checkout step 1 and step 2). Combined traffic share of passing templates: 8%, meaning 92% of mobile traffic hits a template that’s failing CWV. Pre-launch readiness: NOT READY.
- All three primary content templates fail (homepage, PDP, collection). These are the highest-traffic templates (combined 75% of mobile traffic) and they’re failing on all three CWV simultaneously. Sustained pre-launch failure until these are fixed.
- Cart fails on INP only (passes LCP and CLS). Single-CWV failure means a focused fix is enough; closing INP from 220ms to 200ms requires modest cart-drawer work. Easiest fix path to a template passing.
- Account / login fails all three but has minimal traffic (1%). Low priority but still needs to pass before launch, pre-launch readiness gate doesn’t allow tail templates to skip.
-
Recovery sequence to launch-readiness:
- Week 1-2: Collection template (all-3 fix via image format + filter widget refactor + aspect-ratio CSS)
- Week 3-4: Homepage template (image format + render-blocking + CSS aspect-ratio)
- Week 5-6: PDP template (image + cart-drawer refactor)
- Week 7: Search results (collection-pattern fix shared)
- Week 8: Cart INP polish + account/login (low priority)
- Result: 8 of 8 passing; launch-ready
- Cumulative effort estimation: 6-8 week focused optimisation cycle. Realistic launch-readiness target: 6 of 8 passing (75%), including all top-3 templates plus checkout. Tail templates (account, about, contact) can pass after launch without ranking impact.
- Identify failing templates × traffic share. High-traffic failing templates first.
- Decompose by sub-metric to know which CWV is dragging each template.
- Apply template-level fixes in priority order.
- Re-evaluate pre-launch gate after each ship.
| Time horizon | Action |
|---|---|
| First 1 hour | Identify high-traffic failing templates. |
| First week | Apply template-level fixes for the top failing template. |
| Day 28 | Field metrics confirm via crux_pass_rate_trend. |
| Quarter onward | Sustained passing across templates; ranking impact recovers. |
Sibling cards merchants should reference together
| Card | Why merchants reach for it |
|---|---|
psi_score_by_template | Composite score per template. |
psi_lcp_by_template | LCP per template. |
psi_opportunity_by_template | Opportunities per template. |
psi_slowest_template | Worst template singled out. |
psi_template_trend | Per-template trend over time. |
psi_all_cwv_pass | Per-URL pass status. |
psi_cwv_pass_rate | Origin-level pass rate. |
crux_pass_rate_trend | Field pass rate trend. |
Reconciling against the vendor’s own dashboard
Where to look:- GSC Core Web Vitals → URL groups, surfaces URL groups (similar to templates) with pass/fail status.
- PageSpeed Insights, per-URL field-data pass status.
| Reason | Direction | What to do |
|---|---|---|
| Template grouping vs URL grouping. GSC groups URLs by similarity; Vortex IQ uses explicit template classification. | Different grouping | Use per-URL view for direct comparison. |
| Lab vs field. Vortex IQ template view is lab-anchored; GSC is field-only. | Different data source | Cross-reference for ranking-impact decisions. |