Testimonials extra stat lines — a repeatable label+value, a single pair, or freeform text?

The question: A testimonial card frequently ends with a small stat/result footer — a muted label ("Total savings") over an emphasized value ("$14,200", or a lone "40% more closes"). The testimonials shortcode had no field for it. When we add one — an Extra Texts field — what value shape should it take: a repeatable list of {label, value} rows, exactly one label+value pair, or a freeform rich-text footer?

Context

The trigger was a conversion of a mortgage site whose review cards each had a bordered footer: "Total savings" in muted small caps, then the figure in bold brand green. The testimonials shortcode captures rating, quote, avatar, name, role and location — but nothing for that footer, so the deterministic Site Converter was folding the stat into the author's role line (VP Sales, Method Homes · Total savings $14,200). That's lossy and wrong: the stat is a distinct, emphasized element, not part of the role.

So the card needs a real field. The open question was its shape, which drives three things at once: how authors enter it, how it renders, and how faithfully the converter can populate it from a source card.

Options considered

1. Repeatable {label, value} rows. A small addable list per testimonial; each row is an optional muted label with an emphasized value. Renders as a footer block (label over value). Placed via a new "Extra Texts" slot in Card Rows.

   • For: Matches the observed pattern exactly (label + figure). Handles the common single-stat case and cards with two stats. The muted-label / bold-value styling is intrinsic, so every card reads consistently. Converter mapping is a clean split: leaf label → label, figure → value.
   • Against: Slightly more structure than a single pair; two fields per row.

2. A single {label, value} pair. Exactly one stat per testimonial.

   • For: Simplest field.
   • Against: Can't represent a card with two stats, and the moment one design needs a second line we'd be back here widening it. A repeatable is barely more code and never boxes us in.

3. Freeform rich text. One HTML/text field for the whole footer.

   • For: Maximum authoring flexibility.
   • Against: Loses the consistent muted-label / bold-value typography (each author re-styles by hand), and it's the hardest for the converter to map — it would have to guess where the label ends and the value begins, or dump the raw run and lose the structure. Freeform trades the one thing that makes the stat read as a stat (its two-part styling) for flexibility we don't need.

Decision

A repeatable list of {label, value} rows, surfaced as an "Extra Texts" slot in Card Rows (defaults to a divider + the rows at the card footer, so it can be positioned like any other slot). Each row renders a muted label above an emphasized value; a value-only row (blank label) is allowed. The slot renders only when a row has content, so plain testimonials are unaffected. The Site Converter maps a source card's bordered footer stat into this field — preferring two distinct leaf texts (label + value), else splitting a single "Label $Figure" run on the figure — and pins Card Rows to surface it, instead of cramming the stat into the role line.

Why

The shape should follow the data, and the data is a label paired with a figure — sometimes one, sometimes two. A repeatable {label, value} is the tightest fit: it captures exactly that structure, so the styling (muted label / bold value) can be intrinsic and every card looks the same, and the converter maps it deterministically instead of guessing. The single-pair option is a false economy — it saves nothing and caps the feature the first time a design shows two stats. Freeform maximizes authoring freedom but throws away the consistent typography and the clean converter mapping, which is the whole point of making it a first-class field rather than leaving it as prose. Modeling it as a Card Rows slot keeps it consistent with how every other card-like shortcode composes, so it's positionable without a bespoke layout.