Send two engineers from the same team into the same building and you will get two different reports.
Not because either one is careless. Because they are each running a slightly different list in their head. You check the things you have been burned by. You skip the things you have not. Nobody notices until an audit, or until a ticket comes back weeks later about something everyone assumed somebody else had looked at.
That is the problem the Wi-Fi Checklists were meant to solve. Sixty-six settings, per band, with recommended values filled in. Channels 1, 6, and 11 only. Twenty megahertz on 2.4 GHz. Co-channel interference above -85 dBm gets reported. Utilization under 20% on 5 and 6 GHz. WPA3 required on 6 GHz. Not laws, and not my opinions alone either. Five years of argument with scores of other Wi-Fi folks who caught what was wrong and pushed for what was missing.
They cover 80% to 90% of what you will meet. If you have a reason to change one, change it. If you do not have a reason, you have a starting point and you can get on with your day.
We put them online for free, in PDF and Excel, and asked only for attribution.
Here is the part I did not plan for. Adrian Granados built them into WiFi Explorer Pi, where you define your criteria once and the app scores every BSSID against them and gives you a compliance percentage per band. Sidos has built them into their platform. So has NetViews, Bill Bushong's app. There are others I am not free to name.
Three separate teams reached the same conclusion independently: engineers already had a standard they trusted, so the useful thing to build was not another opinion about channel widths. It was a way to run the standard without having to remember it.
That is what turns a personal habit into something a team can rely on. Build the checklist once, export it, hand the file to everyone, and now you are comparing networks instead of comparing engineers.
The checklists are still free, and they always will be.
What is on your list that is not on mine?