A polished screen invites comments about polish. If the real question is whether the flow makes sense, presenting it without context can send the review in the wrong direction before anyone speaks.
View full image
Before requesting feedback, state the task, the decision under review and the constraints. For a store-pickup flow, that might be: “This explores how customers choose a store and confirm availability. We can change the sequence, but pickup and delivery cannot be combined in this version.” Reviewers now know where their input can affect the work.
Ask about behavior
“Is the hierarchy clear?” is difficult to answer precisely. “What would you select to change the pickup location?” reveals what the reviewer understands. “What do you expect after choosing this store?” can expose a mismatch between selection and confirmation.
Avoid explaining every interaction before asking. Once you have narrated the correct path, the reviewer is evaluating a screen they already know how to use. That can be useful for a design critique, but it cannot show whether a new customer would understand it unaided.
A colleague's walkthrough is also not a substitute for research with intended users. Familiarity with the project changes what they notice.
Make conflicting comments useful
One reviewer asks for fewer details; another asks for more. Instead of treating this as a vote, identify what each is trying to protect. Perhaps the first wants faster store comparison and the second worries about customers arriving outside pickup hours.
The response could be a concise comparison view with relevant hours visible at confirmation. It could also be keeping the information in the list if it is essential to choosing a store. The conflict gives you a question about timing, not an obligation to average two preferences.
Close the loop
After the review, record what changed, what did not and why. “We kept the availability message because selecting a store does not reserve stock” is enough. A long defense makes it harder to see the actual decision.
If the same concern appears repeatedly, check whether the design is communicating its behavior. Repeating the rationale more forcefully is rarely the most useful next step. Sometimes the reviewers have found a problem you have learned to overlook.