Implementation-first service
When TTFB, LCP, or INP regress because of code, cache, CDN, script loading, theme or plugin behavior, or rendering bottlenecks, the work should stay focused on the layer that is actually causing the slowdown.
Sprint shape
Clear scope before implementation, one controlled sprint, and written verification at the end.
The first pass is meant to move the actual problem, not generate vague theory or generic audits without implementation.
Sharper symptoms
These narrower pages map the same service lane to a more specific failure path, input set, and first-sprint shape.
When uncached WordPress requests spike while warm cached pages are fast because WP Rocket, Cloudways, Varnish, CDN, preload, or plugins fragment the cache path.
When ecommerce product or category pages are slowed by third-party scripts, GTM overhead, widgets, long tasks, and template code.
When Core Web Vitals regress, the bottleneck is usually not that WordPress is slow. It is usually one of a few repeat failures: the wrong hero asset winning LCP, cache or CDN rules serving the wrong layer, a theme or plugin release adding synchronous work, third-party scripts taking over INP, or a template change turning a previously light route into a heavier render path.
The point of the first sprint is to isolate the dominant bottleneck, not to spread effort across every performance suggestion in a report.
Send the affected URLs or templates, what changed before the regression, your current cache and CDN stack, any PageSpeed screenshots, and whether the slowdown is steady or intermittent.
Best starting set
One recurring paid-work pattern here is post-release speed regression on high-value pages where the real bottleneck sits in template weight, asset delivery, cache behavior, or script loading rather than in one dramatic server failure.
The useful proof is not a generic score screenshot. It is isolating the dominant bottleneck on representative pages, moving it, and handing off before-and-after verification that maps back to the affected template.
I also maintain a controlled WordPress Core Web Vitals lab for public proof without exposing client data. It uses two matching WordPress setups: a slow baseline and a fixed implementation with the same dummy layout, route structure, hero area, review widget area, gallery, FAQ, testimonials, and post grid.
The slow routes scored 24, 44, 37, and 45 in PageSpeed lab checks. The matching fixed routes scored 100, 100, 100, and 100 after media, script, cache, and layout cleanup.
It is a technical work sample, not a client case study or a guarantee. The point is to show the sprint pattern: isolate the dominant bottleneck, fix the implementation layer, verify selected routes, and hand off the evidence.
View the WordPress CWV labA bounded sprint focused on the bottleneck, implementation changes where needed, before and after verification, and a written handoff.
Sites with a clear speed problem and a real technical layer to fix.
Price expectation
Most work starts as a fixed first sprint after the issue is reviewed.
Related notes
These notes show the failure paths, checks, and verification logic that usually sit behind the sprint.
When TTFB jumps after a WordPress release, the real bottleneck is often split across PHP work, cache behavior, plugins, and edge configuration rather than one dramatic server failure.
After a WordPress plugin or theme change, the failure often sits in canonical output, noindex tags, redirects, or cache behavior rather than the server itself.
Start with the issue
Send the URL, what changed, and where the break shows up. If the issue is sharp enough, the first reply should turn into a bounded sprint instead of a broad package.