"Expanded the design system" tells a recruiter nothing. Expanded how? By what measure? For whom? The verb floats without an anchor.

'Expanded' vs 'grew' — and which belongs on your resume

Both describe increase, but they signal different ownership. Grew pairs with user-facing metrics—engagement, retention, MAU. It reads active and outcome-focused: "Grew mobile DAU from 12K to 48K through onboarding redesign." Expanded pairs with scope, coverage, or infrastructure—component libraries, design systems, accessibility reach. It reads more administrative: "Expanded design system to cover 6 new product surfaces."

For designer resumes, grew wins when you owned a metric that moved. Expanded works when you broadened a capability or coverage area—but only if you quantify the before/after. Without numbers, both verbs are empty. A hiring manager skimming your resume wants to know what changed because you were there. "Grew" commits to a number going up. "Expanded" often hides behind the work itself. If you can use grew + a percentage or absolute delta, do that. If the work was genuinely about scope (adding 80 components, covering 4 new platforms), then expanded is honest—but still pair it with the count.

Recruiters parse them differently, too. Grew signals product thinking. Expanded signals systems thinking. Both are valuable; pick the one that matches what you actually did, then prove it with a number.

13 more synonyms for 'expanded'

Synonym When it fits Resume bullet
Scaled System or process growth with volume proof Scaled design system from 42 to 180 components, supporting 9 product teams across iOS and web
Built Creating something new from scratch Built accessibility guidelines (WCAG 2.1 AA) covering 230 UI patterns, reducing a11y bugs by 64%
Launched Shipping a net-new capability or surface Launched design tokens library in Figma, adopted by 18 designers in first 3 weeks
Shipped Delivering work to production Shipped dark mode across 12 app surfaces, lifting daily session duration by 11%
Developed Iterative creation with clear deliverable Developed mobile component library with 95 reusable patterns, cutting designer handoff time 40%
Extended Adding to an existing foundation Extended icon set from 60 to 210 glyphs, covering all product surfaces in rebrand
Broadened Widening reach or applicability Broadened design system documentation to cover 5 new frameworks, onboarding 14 eng contributors
Grew User metrics or engagement increases Grew mobile app NPS from 48 to 67 through checkout flow redesign (A/B tested, n=22K users)
Increased Raising a measurable quantity Increased design review velocity by 35% by standardizing Figma file structure across 6 squads
Multiplied Large-scale numeric growth Multiplied component usage from 1.2K to 8.7K instances across product after adoption campaign
Widened Expanding surface area or audience Widened design system reach to include marketing site, supporting 4 brand designers
Augmented Adding capability to an existing system Augmented color palette with 18 semantic tokens, improving contrast compliance from 72% to 98%
Diversified Adding variety or coverage Diversified illustration library to include 40 spot illustrations for empty states and onboarding

Three rewrites

Weak: Expanded design system to support new features
Strong: Scaled design system from 58 to 140 components, supporting 3 product launches and reducing designer-to-developer handoff questions by 52%
Why it works: Specific start/end counts, concrete outcome tied to team efficiency.

Weak: Expanded our user research efforts
Strong: Grew user research cadence from 2 to 9 sessions per sprint, surfacing insights that informed 4 roadmap pivots and lifted feature adoption by 28%
Why it works: Quantified the change in research volume and tied it to product decisions + a retention metric.

Weak: Expanded accessibility coverage across the product
Strong: Built WCAG 2.1 AA compliance into 180 UI components, cutting accessibility-related support tickets by 41% over 6 months
Why it works: Specific standard, exact component count, measurable downstream impact on support load.

When 'expanded' is the right word

If your work genuinely broadened scope without a clean before/after user metric, expanded is honest—just quantify the scope. "Expanded design system documentation to cover 8 additional platforms" is fine if that's what happened. If you led a rebrand that touched 60 surfaces, "expanded brand guidelines to cover 14 new asset types" describes the work. If you can't replace it with a tighter verb and you've added numbers, keep it. The sin isn't the verb—it's the vagueness.

Action verbs by seniority level

Junior designers write "supported the design lead" or "assisted with user research." Mid-level writes "designed the checkout flow" or "ran 12 usability sessions." Senior writes "owned the design system" or "architected the component library strategy." Directors and above write "scaled design operations across 4 regions" or "transformed the brand identity, lifting unaided recall 19 points."

The verb tier signals your level. A junior using "architected" reads as resume inflation unless the bullet proves it. A senior using "assisted" undersells the role. Recruiters pattern-match verb choice to JD language. If the role says "own," your bullets should say owned, led, or drove. If it says "support," you can say supported—but only if that's genuinely what you did. The mismatch is a tell. Verb ladders are real: contribute → execute → manage → own → scale → transform. Pick the tier that matches your actual scope, then prove it with outcomes. An IC claiming "transformed" without exec-level scope will get screened out. A director claiming "supported" will read as under-leveled. Match your seniority to the verb, and the verb to what you shipped.

Skip the busywork — Sorce applies for you. 40 free swipes/day.

For more: evaluated synonym, exceeded synonym, explained synonym, fabricated synonym, guided synonym