# Does this flow need a review step?

[Website version](https://patterns.alexanderclaes.com/patterns/review-before-submit/)

Updated 30 October 2026

Let people check meaningful answers before committing to an important transaction.

## Sources take different approaches

GOV.UK recommends a check-answers page for small and medium-sized transactions. This guide focuses on consequential submissions and allows simpler cases to keep review beside the final action. WCAG permits reversal, checking with correction, or review and confirmation for the submissions it covers.

**Preferred starting point:** [GOV.UK · Check answers](https://design-system.service.gov.uk/patterns/check-answers/). Start with GOV.UK for a transaction review flow. A shorter route needs a contextual reason and must still provide the safeguards required for the submission.

Compare: [W3C · Error prevention (legal, financial, data)](https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Understanding/error-prevention-legal-financial-data.html). [How we choose sources](https://patterns.alexanderclaes.com/about/#sources).

## Recommendation

Add a review page before a consequential submission, with direct links to change answers.

## Problem

Submitting incorrect details would have consequences.

## Add a review step when

- Applications, bookings, or other transactions where corrections are expensive.
- A multi-step flow where earlier answers are no longer visible.

## Skip a separate review step when

- The change is trivial and easily reversible, such as a preference setting.
- Users can already check and correct the relevant details beside the final action.

## Example

[View the example on the website](https://patterns.alexanderclaes.com/patterns/review-before-submit/#example).

## Implementation

1. Group relevant answers under headings. Mark skipped optional answers as 'Not provided'; omit questions the user was never asked.
2. Prefill the edit form and name each change control with its context, such as 'Change address'.
3. Return directly to review after an edit. If the change opens a new branch, collect those answers first and remove stale, irrelevant answers.
4. Make it clear nothing is submitted yet. Label the final action with its consequence and show confirmation after success.

## Tradeoffs

Review adds effort and does not replace clear questions or validation. WCAG 3.3.4 (AA) covers legal or financial transactions, changes to stored user-controlled data, and test responses; it permits reversal, checking with correction, or review with correction and confirmation. A separate review page is one implementation, not a universal requirement.

## Verification

Can someone edit one answer and return directly to the updated review?

## References

- [GOV.UK · Check answers](https://design-system.service.gov.uk/patterns/check-answers/)
- [W3C · Error prevention (legal, financial, data)](https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Understanding/error-prevention-legal-financial-data.html)

## Related patterns

- [One long form or multiple steps?](https://patterns.alexanderclaes.com/patterns/multi-step-forms.md)
- [Confirmation or undo?](https://patterns.alexanderclaes.com/patterns/destructive-actions.md)