How to review a Notion Markdown export before relying on it

I'm building NotiMD, an early beta for exporting selected Notion pages as readable Markdown. One design question has shaped the export report: what can we actually verify after writing the files?

Here is a small review workflow you can try with our public synthetic example, without an account or Notion token:

https://notimd.pages.dev/demo

1. Download and extract the example ZIP. Keep the folder structure intact. Open README.md, then index.md in a Markdown viewer.

2. Follow the Project Atlas link and the link back to the overview. Open both Meeting notes folders: the example intentionally contains two different pages with the same title.

3. Open the image and text attachment from the root note. A readable note alone does not tell you whether its linked resources are present.

4. Read _export-report.md. In this sample, all 21 checked local links point to written files, but the report still contains warnings. An out-of-scope Notion page stays an online reference, and an unsupported embed is skipped.

5. Before relying on an export of your own notes, compare important content with the source. A local link check cannot prove that every source block was converted or that external URLs work.

The distinction matters: VERIFIED describes a local file reference; it is not a promise of complete migration. Keep your source notes until your own review is finished.

This example uses synthetic notes. NotiMD is an on-demand exporter, not automatic backup or full database migration, and this demo does not establish production email or activation reliability.

When you review an export, would you prefer warnings grouped by source page or by the action needed to resolve them?