AI Discoverability Implementation Audit: citeunseen.io (today)

Executive summary and fit classification

Fit classification: Implementation fit. There is a real, bounded backlog of specific technical and content work that a competent team can execute.

citeunseen.io scored 74.2% (71.25 of 96 resolvable points) adjusted rubric points at high confidence. Of 33 checks in rubric version 0.6: 12 complete, 10 substantial, 7 partial, 2 inconclusive, 1 minimal, 1 missing. 21 open item(s) were ranked into an implementation backlog.

The three highest-value actions

#1 CR-06 Body text is machine-readable prose. Render or remove the template syntax so the published text is the text, and re-check the pages that a buyer reads first.
#2 TE-03 Customer and outcome evidence. Publish at least one case example with the situation, the intervention, the measurement window, the baseline, and the result, with the customer's permission recorded.
#3 CI-02 Claim support. For each material claim, put its provenance next to it. An external source is strongest. Where none exists -- which is the normal case for a private operating figure -- a first-person attestation is still a source: name who is asserting it, the period it covers, the scope it covers, and the basis ("our internal figures", "verifiable on reference check"). Removing a true claim is the last resort, not the first.

What this report is. A measurement of conditions this site controls, each supported by a captured, timestamped observation you can reproduce. What it is not. A prediction of whether any AI answer product will cite this site, and not a promise of ranking, traffic, leads, or revenue.

Overall score, adjusted denominator, and confidence

74.2

71.25 points awarded of 96 adjusted (raw rubric 100)

Grade B
Credible but inconsistent
Confidence: high

Fix high-impact entity, evidence, and citation gaps

Confidence basis. 96 of 100 rubric points were resolvable (96% coverage); 2 check(s) worth 4 points are inconclusive; 0 scored check(s) carry low confidence.

Why the denominator is not 100

The raw rubric is 100 points. 4 point(s) were removed because those checks could not be scored either way.

Not applicable (the check does not apply to this site): none.
Inconclusive (collection or scope prevented a decision, so the check is unresolved rather than failed): EN-04, AC-03.

Neither group was scored as zero. A zero is reserved for a check rated Missing, which requires evidence.

Weighted for Professional services

Against the weights for this market the score is 72.8, 1.4 points below the baseline. The baseline above stays the headline number and is what a re-audit compares, so changing market profile can never look like progress.

Dimension scores. The bar repeats the percentage column; no meaning is carried by colour alone.
Dimension	Rubric weight	Adjusted weight	Awarded	Percentage	Grade
CR Crawl and retrieval accessibility If a retrieval system cannot fetch your pages reliably, nothing else on this list matters. Everything downstream depends on this working.	15	15	14	93.3%	A
EN Entity clarity An engine has to decide which organization a page is about before it can recommend that organization. Conflicting names and missing contact facts force it to guess, and it may guess wrong.	15	12	8	66.7%	C
CI Citation readiness This is the largest single block of points because it is the mechanism. Answer engines reuse passages that stand on their own; copy that needs the surrounding page to make sense is rarely quoted.	20	20	14.75	73.8%	B
TA Topical coverage and authority Coverage decides whether you are a candidate answer at all. A question with no owned page cannot be answered from your site by anything.	15	15	10.25	68.3%	C
TE Trust and evidence Assurance is a precondition for being recommended. An engine asked to suggest a provider has little reason to name one whose operator, credentials, and outcomes cannot be checked.	15	15	8.25	55%	C
SD Structured data Structured data is the one place you state your identity in a form nothing has to infer from prose. It is also the cheapest of these to fix.	10	10	10	100%	A
AC AI and agent controls Crawler treatment should be a decision you made rather than a default nobody chose. It is worth few points because it is usually already fine, and catastrophic on the rare occasion it is not.	5	4	3.5	87.5%	A
MR Measurement readiness Without a baseline fixed before results are known, any later movement can be explained after the fact. This is what makes a re-audit mean something.	5	5	2.5	50%	C

What to do

19 finding(s) are open, in the order we would take them. The order weighs how much each one matters, how many rubric points it holds, and roughly how much work it is, so stopping halfway still leaves the work that mattered most done. We do not estimate hours. We can see what your site is missing; we cannot see your codebase or your release process. Doing all of it is not a guarantee of placement, ranking, citation, recommendation, traffic, or revenue.

How to read this. The measurements are the tool's; the judgements are a person's; the score is arithmetic over both. No part of this report was written or rated by a language model.

automated means the tool observed it and the observation is reproducible from the evidence record. operator means a named reviewer read that evidence and made a judgement, with the reason recorded beside it. Weigh them differently. You should.

CR-06 Body text is machine-readable prose Major
TE-03 Customer and outcome evidence Critical
CI-02 Claim support Major
EN-03 People and authorship identity Minor
TA-03 Comparative and decision content Minor
MR-03 Recheck discipline Major
CI-01 Direct answer passages Minor
TA-01 Priority-question coverage Minor
TA-02 First-hand experience Minor
EN-01 Organization identity consistency Minor
TE-02 Expertise and credential support Minor
CI-04 Source attribution Minor
TE-01 Ownership and accountability Minor
TA-04 Internal topic relationships Minor
TE-04 Policy and limitation clarity Minor
MR-01 Baseline question set Minor
EN-02 Product and service identity Minor
MR-02 Referral and conversion attribution Minor
AC-02 Machine-readable guidance quality Minor

One prompt that fixes what this report found

Everything below is self-contained: the findings, the instructions, the evidence ids, and a standing rule against inventing anything to satisfy them. Paste it into the tool working on your site.

You are fixing a website against an AI discoverability audit. If you are running in a terminal or an editor with access to the site's repository, read the files yourself and make the edits directly. Work the findings in the order given.

You are applying an evidence-backed AI discoverability audit to a website.

Target: https://citeunseen.io
Audit: aud_20260917T021429Z_cd4f4d1c
Rubric: v0.6 (scored by adia/0.1.0)
Score: 71.25 of 96 resolvable rubric points (74.2%), high confidence
Fit: Credible but inconsistent

Every item below came from a captured, timestamped observation of the live
site, not from a model's impression of it. The evidence ids in brackets refer
to records in the audit's JSON appendix.

## Rules

1. Work in order. The list is ranked by impact, effort, confidence, and
dependency; an item that depends on another is listed after it.
2. Keep changes minimal and local. Do not redesign anything the audit did not
flag, and preserve the site's existing voice, structure, and build setup.
3. NEVER INVENT A FACT. Several fixes below could be "completed" by making
something up. Where an item says so, leave a clearly marked TODO for the
site owner rather than filling in a plausible value. A fabricated
testimonial, credential, statistic, or citation is worse than the gap it
replaces, and this audit exists to remove unsupported claims, not add them.
4. Do not add any claim about ranking, citation, traffic, or revenue.
5. If a fix is ambiguous, say so and stop rather than guessing.

Every count below describes the **44 page(s) this run read**, which was every page it could discover. A later run that reads a different number of pages will report different counts for the same site, so compare these against a run of the same size, not against a bigger one, where finding more of a defect is what a bigger sample does.

## Fixes, in order

### 1. [MAJOR] CR-06 Body text is machine-readable prose

**Observed.** 1 of 33 sampled page(s) print template syntax as body text, where a reader and a retrieval system see it: https://citeunseen.io/rubric/crawl-and-retrieval/ (0% of visible text, merge field).

**Why it matters.** A passage made of markup cannot be quoted, summarised, or cited. The page looks populated to the CMS and to a word count, and carries nothing an engine can use.

**Do this.** Render or remove the template syntax so the published text is the text, and re-check the pages that a buyer reads first.

*Evidence: ev_94e1c7d340e7a537, ev_d2189b1bfe60b29c, ev_8483303927c7c826, ev_2b6991b35ed8b852. 1 rubric points at stake.*

### 2. [CRITICAL] TE-03 Customer and outcome evidence

**Observed.** 11 of 33 sampled pages reference customers, clients, or engagements in their own text rather than in a block repeated across the sample; 5 state an outcome-shaped result; 38 long quotation(s) that could be testimonials were found; and 12 page(s) mention a baseline or measurement period.

**Why it matters.** Outcome claims without a baseline and a scope cannot be checked, and an engine that repeats them exposes the business to a claim it cannot defend.

**Do this.** Publish at least one case example with the situation, the intervention, the measurement window, the baseline, and the result, with the customer's permission recorded.

*Evidence: ev_71bd5757dca0c65e, ev_8483303927c7c826, ev_94e1c7d340e7a537, ev_d2189b1bfe60b29c. 3 rubric points at stake.*

> **Do not fabricate.** Do not invent customers, testimonials, names, logos, or outcomes. Leave a marked TODO for the site owner. A fabricated testimonial is fraud, not a fix.

> Depends on: TE-01

### 3. [MAJOR] CI-02 Claim support

**Observed.** 163 distinct material claim candidate(s) were detected across 13 page(s) in 226 occurrence(s): percentage (122), superlative (14), money (11), count (8), compliance (8). Of those, 115 sit on a page carrying an external link that could serve as a source, 0 carry a first-person attestation in their own context (a stated basis plus at least two of asserting party, period and scope), and 48 carry neither. Links to the organization's own social or code profiles are excluded from the source count: they identify the publisher, not the origin of a number.

**Why it matters.** An unsupported number is a liability in an AI answer: it can be repeated without its caveats, and it cannot be defended when a buyer asks where it came from. What closes that gap is stated provenance, which a hyperlink is only one form of.

**Do this.** For each material claim, put its provenance next to it. An external source is strongest. Where none exists -- which is the normal case for a private operating figure -- a first-person attestation is still a source: name who is asserting it, the period it covers, the scope it covers, and the basis ("our internal figures", "verifiable on reference check"). Removing a true claim is the last resort, not the first.

*Evidence: ev_29deca0d2d2b4823, ev_94e1c7d340e7a537, ev_d2189b1bfe60b29c, ev_8483303927c7c826. 2.5 rubric points at stake.*

> **Do not fabricate.** Do not invent a source, statistic, or methodology. A claim may be supported by a first-person attestation instead of an external source, but the attestation is itself a factual assertion: writing "our internal figures, verifiable on reference check" next to a number you were not told the provenance of is fabrication, not formatting. Leave a marked TODO naming the four things the owner must supply -- who is asserting it, the period, the scope, and the basis -- and remove the claim only if the owner says it cannot be stood behind.

> Depends on: CI-04

### 4. [MINOR] EN-03 People and authorship identity

**Observed.** 33 Person entit(ies) and 16 structured author reference(s) were found. 16 of 16 article-style pages carry an author attribution. 0 Person entit(ies) link to external profiles via sameAs.

**Why it matters.** Expertise content that no identified person stands behind is difficult to weigh, and difficult to defend when a buyer asks who wrote it.

**Do this.** Attribute every substantive page to a named person with a linked biography, role, and credentials, and connect that person to the organization in structured data.

*Evidence: ev_a64b034a9671a347, ev_81aabac08d13788b, ev_94e1c7d340e7a537, ev_d2189b1bfe60b29c. 2 rubric points at stake.*

> **Do not fabricate.** Do not invent an author, biography, role, or credential.

> Depends on: EN-01

### 5. [MINOR] TA-03 Comparative and decision content

**Observed.** 11 of 33 sampled pages contain comparison language, 33 state a limitation or fit boundary, and 8 use a table. No competitors were supplied at intake.

**Why it matters.** Buyers ask comparison questions, and so do the people prompting answer engines. A site that never states who it is not for cannot be matched to who it is for.

**Do this.** Publish one honest comparison or decision page with a criteria table, and state explicitly where the offering is not the right fit.

*Evidence: ev_94e1c7d340e7a537, ev_d2189b1bfe60b29c, ev_8483303927c7c826, ev_2b6991b35ed8b852. 2 rubric points at stake.*

### 6. [MAJOR] MR-03 Recheck discipline

**Observed.** No recheck schedule for the rubric, crawl sample, question set, competitors, and evidence was recorded at intake.

**Why it matters.** Changing method between reports without disclosure makes movement uninterpretable.

**Do this.** Fix a recheck cadence and record the rubric version, crawl sample, and question set used for each run so score movement can be attributed to the site rather than the method.

*Evidence: ev_81aabac08d13788b. 1 rubric points at stake.*

> Depends on: MR-01

### 7. [MINOR] CI-01 Direct answer passages

**Observed.** 22 heading(s) across the sample are phrased as questions. 2 of 33 pages open with a definitional sentence in the first 400 characters. Of 10 operator-supplied priority questions, 10 have a page matching 60% or more of their key terms.

**Why it matters.** An answer engine reuses passages that stand on their own. Copy that requires the surrounding page to make sense is rarely quotable.

**Do this.** Give each priority question its own heading and a self-contained two-to-four sentence answer directly beneath it.

*Evidence: ev_bf95f9a59aca6b51, ev_ecdc65c4daed1a4c, ev_94e1c7d340e7a537, ev_d2189b1bfe60b29c. 1.25 rubric points at stake.*

### 8. [UNRESOLVED] EN-04 External identity reconciliation

**Observed.** The site links out to 14 distinct external host(s); 1 sameAs URL(s) are declared in structured data. No owned profiles were declared at intake, so nothing could be reconciled.

**Why it matters.** Owned profiles that the site never links, and profiles carrying an old brand, split one identity into several that an engine must reconcile on its own.

**Do this.** Link every owned profile from the site and declare it in sameAs, and retire or update profiles carrying a former brand.

*Evidence: ev_94e1c7d340e7a537, ev_d2189b1bfe60b29c, ev_8483303927c7c826, ev_2b6991b35ed8b852. 1.5 rubric points at stake.*

> **Do not fabricate.** Do not invent external profiles or links to them.

> Depends on: EN-01

### 9. [MINOR] TA-01 Priority-question coverage

**Observed.** Of 10 priority questions, 10 have at least one page covering half or more of their key terms, and 10 have a substantive page of 400 words or more. 10 question(s) have three or more substantive pages competing to answer them.

**Why it matters.** Coverage decides whether the site is a candidate answer at all. A question with no owned page cannot be answered from this site by any engine.

**Do this.** Write one substantive owning page for each uncovered priority question, and consolidate pages that compete for the same question.

*Evidence: ev_bf95f9a59aca6b51, ev_323361458f1adb9d, ev_94e1c7d340e7a537, ev_d2189b1bfe60b29c. 1 rubric points at stake.*

> Depends on: CI-01

### 10. [MINOR] TA-02 First-hand experience

**Observed.** 33 of 33 sampled pages carry 600 or more words. First-hand markers were detected on 23 page(s): first person operator on 0, measurement on 12, artifact on 18. No link to a public repository, dataset, or downloadable artifact was found in the sample.

**Why it matters.** First-hand detail is the part of a page a competitor cannot copy and a summariser cannot generate. It is the strongest reason for an engine to prefer this source.

**Do this.** Publish the method, the numbers, and the artifact behind at least one claim per topic: a repository, a dataset, a template, or a documented before-and-after measurement.

*Evidence: ev_4b23aaef1f5c3bf4, ev_a64b034a9671a347, ev_94e1c7d340e7a537, ev_d2189b1bfe60b29c. 1 rubric points at stake.*

> **Do not fabricate.** Do not invent research, case evidence, or first-hand experience. Only restructure experience the site already describes.

> Depends on: TA-01

### 11. [MINOR] EN-01 Organization identity consistency

**Observed.** Structured-data identity names: 'Cite Unseen' on 33 page(s); 'Chris Brock' on 33 page(s). Declared og:site_name values: 'Cite Unseen'. 1 contact value(s) appear in structured data: address(structured). 33 distinct meta description(s) were served across 33 pages.

**Why it matters.** An engine has to decide which entity a page is about before it can recommend that entity. Conflicting names and missing contact facts force it to guess.

**Do this.** State one organization or person name, one description, and one contact path consistently in visible content and in structured data on every page.

*Evidence: ev_8e71330fba51bb5f, ev_94e1c7d340e7a537, ev_d2189b1bfe60b29c, ev_8483303927c7c826. 1 rubric points at stake.*

> **Do not fabricate.** Do not invent a legal entity name, address, or contact detail.

### 12. [MINOR] TE-02 Expertise and credential support

**Observed.** 20 distinct credential-shaped claim(s) were detected across 6 page(s) in 41 occurrence(s); 3 appear within 120 characters of a date. No unexplained logo-wall pattern was detected.

**Why it matters.** A credential without a scope, a date, and a responsible entity cannot be verified, and an unverifiable claim is a risk rather than an asset when repeated by a machine.

**Do this.** State the issuing body, the scope, the date, and the entity the credential belongs to next to every credential claim.

*Evidence: ev_8e71330fba51bb5f, ev_a64b034a9671a347, ev_94e1c7d340e7a537, ev_d2189b1bfe60b29c. 2 rubric points at stake.*

> **Do not fabricate.** Do not invent or upgrade a credential, certification, audit, or partnership. These are verifiable facts about a real organization and getting one wrong is a legal problem.

### 13. [MINOR] CI-04 Source attribution

**Observed.** 14 of 33 sampled pages link to an external destination that could serve as a source (42.4%). 177 external link(s) were found in total, but own social and code profiles are excluded from the source count. 42 link(s) point at a standards body, government, academic, or research host. 19 page(s) exceed 600 words while citing no external source.

**Why it matters.** Attribution is how a claim survives being repeated. A page that cites its sources gives an engine a reason to trust the passage it is about to reuse.

**Do this.** Cite the standard, study, or filing next to the claim it supports, with the source name and date visible in the text rather than only in a link.

*Evidence: ev_5cf58d4252b3944c, ev_5766d00cfdb7da01, ev_94e1c7d340e7a537, ev_d2189b1bfe60b29c. 1.5 rubric points at stake.*

> **Do not fabricate.** Do not invent citations. Link only sources you can verify exist and actually support the nearby claim.

### 14. [UNRESOLVED] AC-03 Agent-facing transaction boundaries

**Observed.** 3 page(s) expose a form and 7 mention a purchase surface. The collector never submits a form or performs any state-changing request, so interaction boundaries were not exercised.

**Why it matters.** An agent acting on a customer's behalf needs to know what commits the customer and what does not. Ambiguity here creates unintended commitments.

**Do this.** Document what each form or endpoint commits the visitor to, require authentication for anything that creates an obligation, and state the approval step in public documentation.

*Evidence: ev_f0846c79d9d7d053, ev_d2189b1bfe60b29c, ev_94e1c7d340e7a537, ev_8483303927c7c826. 0.5 rubric points at stake.*

### 15. [MINOR] TE-01 Ownership and accountability

**Observed.** About-style page(s) found: 2. Contact path(s) found: 0. 1 distinct mailto destination(s) and 3 form(s) appear in the sample. 66 organization or person entit(ies) are declared in structured data.

**Why it matters.** Accountability is a precondition for being recommended. An engine asked to suggest a provider has little reason to name one whose operator and contact path are unclear.

**Do this.** Name the operating entity, the responsible people, and a working contact path on a linked page, and mirror those facts in structured data.

*Evidence: ev_8e71330fba51bb5f, ev_f0846c79d9d7d053, ev_94e1c7d340e7a537, ev_d2189b1bfe60b29c. 1 rubric points at stake.*

### 16. [MINOR] TA-04 Internal topic relationships

**Observed.** Across 33 sampled pages the median page links to 23 other sampled page(s). 0 sampled page(s) received no internal link from any other sampled page, and 1 received exactly one.

**Why it matters.** Internal links are how evidence pages get discovered and how a crawler learns which pages a site treats as important. An orphaned page carries its authority nowhere.

**Do this.** Link every evidence and educational page from the commercial page it supports, and from a topic index.

*Evidence: ev_94e1c7d340e7a537, ev_d2189b1bfe60b29c, ev_8483303927c7c826, ev_2b6991b35ed8b852. 0.75 rubric points at stake.*

> Depends on: TA-01

### 17. [MINOR] TE-04 Policy and limitation clarity

**Observed.** Privacy policy reference(s): 3. Terms reference(s): 3. 3 form(s) appear in the sample. 33 page(s) show evidence of third-party analytics being loaded.

**Why it matters.** Policies set the boundaries a buyer and an agent both need before acting. Their absence is a friction point at exactly the moment a recommendation would convert.

**Do this.** Publish a dated privacy policy covering analytics and form data, and a terms or engagement-scope page that matches what is actually sold.

*Evidence: ev_a9d986c68889ec2b, ev_1a325e3e3255a73a, ev_94e1c7d340e7a537, ev_d2189b1bfe60b29c. 0.75 rubric points at stake.*

### 18. [MINOR] MR-01 Baseline question set

**Observed.** 10 priority question(s) were recorded at intake.

**Why it matters.** Without a question set fixed before results are known, any later movement can be explained after the fact.

**Do this.** Agree and version a question set covering buying questions, brand variations, comparison questions, and geography, dated before the first measurement.

*Evidence: ev_94e1c7d340e7a537. 0.5 rubric points at stake.*

### 19. [MINOR] EN-02 Product and service identity

**Observed.** Of 4 operator-supplied offerings, 4 are named in the title or a heading of at least one sampled page, and 3 have exactly one such owning page. 1 Product, Service, or SoftwareApplication entit(ies) are declared in structured data.

**Why it matters.** An engine can only recommend an offering it can name, locate at a stable URL, and define. Offerings that live only in prose are hard to recommend specifically.

**Do this.** Give each offering one page with a stable URL, a one-sentence definition, a named audience, and structured data that ties it to the organization.

*Evidence: ev_d2189b1bfe60b29c, ev_e9141a7c1d2a3408, ev_94e1c7d340e7a537, ev_8483303927c7c826. 1 rubric points at stake.*

> Depends on: EN-01

### 20. [MINOR] MR-02 Referral and conversion attribution

**Observed.** Public markup and response headers indicate 2 analytics or measurement provider(s): google-analytics.com, googletagmanager.com. Whether referrals from AI answer surfaces can be isolated and tied to qualified outcomes cannot be determined from public pages.

**Why it matters.** Reporting mentions or impressions without connecting them to qualified behaviour cannot justify continued spend.

**Do this.** Configure a referral segment for AI answer surfaces and connect it to a defined qualified-outcome event, or record the implementation backlog to do so.

*Evidence: ev_94e1c7d340e7a537, ev_1ea12af6c3ba05ac, ev_d2189b1bfe60b29c, ev_8483303927c7c826. 1 rubric points at stake.*

> Depends on: MR-01

### 21. [MINOR] AC-02 Machine-readable guidance quality

**Observed.** 3 machine-readable guidance file(s) are served: /llms.txt (14282 bytes, 45 link(s)), /llms-full.txt (172250 bytes, 75 link(s)), /.well-known/security.txt (679 bytes, 4 link(s)). /llms-full.txt, /.well-known/security.txt are not a link index, so outbound links in them are not counted: prose quotes URLs, and a site publishing work it did for somebody else has to name that site. These conventions are voluntary. Serving them is not a ranking or citation guarantee, and no engine is known to require them.

**Why it matters.** A machine-readable index is cheap to publish and cheap to get wrong: a stale one misleads, and an overstated one invites claims the site cannot support.

**Do this.** Keep the guidance file generated from the same source as the sitemap so it cannot go stale.

*Evidence: ev_58f666cb6b76d87a, ev_05075a2780d6186d, ev_ce0751eb4898011c, ev_37a5875facc08b37. 0.5 rubric points at stake.*

## What this audit could not determine

- This audit sampled 44 page(s) against a configured limit of 200 at a maximum depth of 3. Findings describe the sample, not every page on the site.
- Scored against rubric version 0.6 using tool version adia/0.1.0. Score movement between runs can come from a rubric change as easily as a site change.
- Collection used plain HTTP retrieval with no JavaScript execution. Content that appears only after client-side rendering was not observed.
- Off-domain properties were not retrieved. The run was restricted to the authorized registrable domain.
- No form was submitted, no authenticated content was accessed, and no state-changing request was made.
- 2 check(s) are inconclusive and contribute no points in either direction: EN-04, AC-03. Their 4 points were removed from the denominator rather than scored as zeroes.
- This audit measures conditions a site can control against rubric version 0.6. It does not guarantee placement, ranking, citation, recommendation, traffic, leads, or revenue in any search engine or AI answer product, and a low score does not prove a site is absent from AI-generated answers.
- Unresolved checks: EN-04, AC-03. These contributed no points in either direction.

Do not "fix" any of the above. They were not measured, so a change there
cannot be verified by a re-audit.

## When you are done

Tell the site owner the work is done. If their audit came with rechecks, they
reply to the delivery email and ask for one: the site is read again against the
same rubric version, and the reply says what moved and what did not. That is
the proof the work landed, and it is the only thing that settles it. Do not
report a score yourself, because you cannot run the rubric.

1. CR-06 Body text is machine-readable prose

PartialMajor1 point(s) at stake

What we found. 1 of 33 sampled page(s) print template syntax as body text, where a reader and a retrieval system see it: https://citeunseen.io/rubric/crawl-and-retrieval/ (0% of visible text, merge field).

Do this.

Find the pages the report names and look at how their body copy is marked up.
Put prose in <p> elements. Text held only in <div>, table cells or image alt is text a parser has to guess about.
Replace text baked into images with real text, keeping the image if it earns its place.
Give each page enough body prose to stand on its own rather than relying on the page it links to.

How to tell it worked. View source on the page and confirm the paragraphs are paragraphs.

Evidence: 45 record(s)

ev_94e1c7d340e7a537 (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_d2189b1bfe60b29c (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/pricing/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_8483303927c7c826 (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/sample/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_2b6991b35ed8b852 (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/scan/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_8e71330fba51bb5f (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/about/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_a9d986c68889ec2b (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/terms/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_a64b034a9671a347 (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/rubric/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_5cf58d4252b3944c (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/webmcp/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
and 37 more record(s) in the JSON appendix

Where this is documented

Documentation: Heading elements, MDN Web Docs
Documentation: Creating helpful, reliable, people-first content, Google Search Central

What this check could not see

Detection is by pattern and names only the conventions it knows: page-builder shortcodes, merge fields, and raw template tags. Other template systems may leak syntax this check does not recognise.
Code and preformatted blocks are excluded, so a page that deliberately documents template syntax is not reported.

2. TE-03 Customer and outcome evidence

MinimalCritical3 point(s) at stake

What we found. 11 of 33 sampled pages reference customers, clients, or engagements in their own text rather than in a block repeated across the sample; 5 state an outcome-shaped result; 38 long quotation(s) that could be testimonials were found; and 12 page(s) mention a baseline or measurement period.

Do TE-01 first.

Do this.

Publish outcomes with the specifics: what the situation was, what was done, what changed, over what period.
Attribute each to a named customer where you have permission, and say when you do not.
Include the ones that did not go to plan, and what you learned.
Do not publish a testimonial you cannot trace back to a real person.

How to tell it worked. Take one outcome and check that a reader could tell whether it resembles their own situation.

Why this rating, and who signed it

Eleven of 33 pages reference engagements and five state an outcome, but reading the 38 long quotations the check found, every one is the site's own copy rather than a customer's words. No customer is named anywhere on the site. The one third-party audit published is anonymised at its owner's request and appears as TLN. For a service business this is the gap this check exists to find, and it cannot be closed by writing: it needs a customer willing to be named.

Signed by Assisted review by Claude Code, 2026-09-17. Not countersigned..

Evidence: 45 record(s) (records the reviewer cited are listed first)

ev_71bd5757dca0c65e (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/sample-tln/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_8483303927c7c826 (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/sample/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_94e1c7d340e7a537 (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_d2189b1bfe60b29c (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/pricing/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_2b6991b35ed8b852 (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/scan/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_8e71330fba51bb5f (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/about/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_a9d986c68889ec2b (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/terms/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_a64b034a9671a347 (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/rubric/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
and 37 more record(s) in the JSON appendix

Where this is documented

Documentation: Review, schema.org
Documentation: Creating helpful, reliable, people-first content, Google Search Central

What this check could not see

A quotation-shaped block is not a testimonial. This rating rests on reading them and finding none attributed to a customer.

3. CI-02 Claim support

PartialMajor2.5 point(s) at stake

What we found. 163 distinct material claim candidate(s) were detected across 13 page(s) in 226 occurrence(s): percentage (122), superlative (14), money (11), count (8), compliance (8). Of those, 115 sit on a page carrying an external link that could serve as a source, 0 carry a first-person attestation in their own context (a stated basis plus at least two of asserting party, period and scope), and 48 carry neither. Links to the organization's own social or code profiles are excluded from the source count: they identify the publisher, not the origin of a number.

Do CI-04 first.

Do this.

List every number, superlative and outcome claim on the site.
For each, add the support next to the claim: the date, the source, the sample, or the method.
Delete or soften anything you cannot support. An unsupported claim is a liability, not a weak asset.
Where the support is a document, link it.

How to tell it worked. Pick three claims at random and try to check them using only the page they sit on.

Why this rating, and who signed it

The detector counts 163 claims in 226 occurrences, and reading them in context changes what the number means. 122 of the claims are percentages, and 145 of the 164 percentage occurrences sit on four pages that are themselves published audit reports: /sample/report, /sample-tln/report, /remediation/baseline and /remediation/after. Every percentage on those pages is shown with the arithmetic that produced it on the same line, in the form '58.1% (44.75 of 77 resolvable points)', which is stronger support than a hyperlink. The 14 superlative claims are all the word 'best' inside 'best match', 'best-matching passage' and a URL containing 'best-practices' in a replayed sample, so none of them is a marketing superlative. What is left after that reading is the real gap: no claim anywhere carries a first-person attestation, and the 48 claims carrying neither a source nor an attestation are on the pages that sell the service rather than the pages that report evidence.

Signed by Assisted review by Claude Code, 2026-09-17. Not countersigned..

Evidence: 45 record(s) (records the reviewer cited are listed first)

ev_29deca0d2d2b4823 (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/sample/report at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_94e1c7d340e7a537 (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_d2189b1bfe60b29c (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/pricing/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_8483303927c7c826 (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/sample/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_2b6991b35ed8b852 (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/scan/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_8e71330fba51bb5f (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/about/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_a9d986c68889ec2b (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/terms/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_a64b034a9671a347 (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/rubric/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
and 37 more record(s) in the JSON appendix

Where this is documented

Documentation: Creating helpful, reliable, people-first content, Google Search Central
Documentation: Review, schema.org

What this check could not see

The claim detector matches patterns and cannot see that a number is shown beside its own denominator. Reading the detected claims in context is what this rating rests on.

4. EN-03 People and authorship identity

PartialMinor2 point(s) at stake

What we found. 33 Person entit(ies) and 16 structured author reference(s) were found. 16 of 16 article-style pages carry an author attribution. 0 Person entit(ies) link to external profiles via sameAs.

Do EN-01 first.

Do this.

Give every piece of authored content a named author, not a company byline or 'admin'.
Give each author a page with their role, their relevant background, and how to verify it.
Link author to organisation both ways, in the prose and in Person or Article structured data.
Keep the same spelling of a name everywhere it appears.

How to tell it worked. Open an article and confirm you can get from the byline to a page that says who wrote it.

Why this rating, and who signed it

All 16 article-style pages carry an author attribution and 33 Person entities are declared, so authorship is stated consistently. None of them links to an external profile through sameAs. The byline is therefore internally consistent and externally unverifiable: an engine can see who the site says wrote this and cannot reconcile that person with anything outside the domain.

Signed by Assisted review by Claude Code, 2026-09-17. Not countersigned..

Evidence: 44 record(s) (records the reviewer cited are listed first)

ev_a64b034a9671a347 (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/rubric/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_81aabac08d13788b (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/remediation/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_94e1c7d340e7a537 (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_d2189b1bfe60b29c (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/pricing/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_8483303927c7c826 (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/sample/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_2b6991b35ed8b852 (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/scan/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_8e71330fba51bb5f (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/about/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_a9d986c68889ec2b (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/terms/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
and 36 more record(s) in the JSON appendix

Where this is documented

Documentation: Article structured data, Google Search Central
Documentation: Person, schema.org
Video: Structured data for developers, Chrome for Developers

What this check could not see

Whether to publish an external profile link is the operator's decision about their own public presence, not a defect in the markup.

5. TA-03 Comparative and decision content

PartialMinor2 point(s) at stake

What we found. 11 of 33 sampled pages contain comparison language, 33 state a limitation or fit boundary, and 8 use a table. No competitors were supplied at intake.

Do this.

Write the comparison a buyer is already making, including the alternatives you lose to.
State the criteria before the verdict, and use the same criteria for every option.
Say plainly who each option suits and who it does not.
Keep it current and put the date on it; a comparison a reader cannot date is one they cannot trust.

How to tell it worked. Give the page to somebody outside the company and ask them which option it recommends and why.

Why this rating, and who signed it

All 33 pages state a limitation or a fit boundary, which is the stronger half of this check and is unusual for a service site. Eleven pages carry comparison language, but no competitors were supplied at intake, so every comparison names a category rather than the alternative a buyer is actually weighing. A reader deciding between this and a named tool finds the category distinction and not the comparison.

Signed by Assisted review by Claude Code, 2026-09-17. Not countersigned..

Evidence: 45 record(s) (records the reviewer cited are listed first)

Where this is documented

Documentation: Creating helpful, reliable, people-first content, Google Search Central

What this check could not see

Without a competitor list the comparative dimension of this check cannot be exercised. The rating reflects what is on the pages, not a judgement that the comparisons are wrong.

6. MR-03 Recheck discipline

MissingMajor1 point(s) at stake

What we found. No recheck schedule for the rubric, crawl sample, question set, competitors, and evidence was recorded at intake.

Do MR-01 first.

Do this.

Put a recheck in the calendar rather than leaving it to memory.
Re-run the same baseline questions, unchanged, on a fixed interval.
Record what changed on the site between rechecks so a movement has a candidate cause.
Keep the history. A single reading is not a trend.

How to tell it worked. Look at two consecutive rechecks and confirm you can say what changed and why.

Why this rating, and who signed it

No recheck schedule was recorded at intake for any of the five things that would need re-running: the rubric, the crawl sample, the question set, the competitor list and the evidence. This audit is itself the second reading of this site, so the rechecks do happen. They happen when somebody remembers, which is not a cadence anybody could hold us to.

Signed by Assisted review by Claude Code, 2026-09-17. Not countersigned..

Evidence: 1 record(s) (records the reviewer cited are listed first)

ev_81aabac08d13788b (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/remediation/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)

Where this is documented

Tool: Google Search Console, Google Search Central
Video: Intro to Google Search Console, Google Search Central

What this check could not see

A schedule recorded at intake is the only evidence this check reads. An informal intention to recheck is not visible to it.

7. CI-01 Direct answer passages

SubstantialMinor1.25 point(s) at stake

What we found. 22 heading(s) across the sample are phrased as questions. 2 of 33 pages open with a definitional sentence in the first 400 characters. Of 10 operator-supplied priority questions, 10 have a page matching 60% or more of their key terms.

Do this.

Write down the questions a buyer actually asks, in their words.
Give each one its own heading, phrased as the question.
Answer it directly beneath in two to four sentences that make sense with no surrounding page.
Put the answer first and the elaboration after it, not the other way round.

How to tell it worked. Read one answer out of context. If it needs the paragraph above it, it is not a passage yet.

Why this rating, and who signed it

All ten priority questions have a page matching sixty per cent or more of their key terms, which is the coverage half of this check and it is met. The passage half is not: only two of 33 pages open with a definitional sentence in the first 400 characters, and 22 headings across the sample are phrased as questions. The seven pages added since the last audit are the strongest here because each one is built around a question, and the older marketing pages still make the reader work through a paragraph of framing before the answer appears.

Signed by Assisted review by Claude Code, 2026-09-17. Not countersigned..

Evidence: 45 record(s) (records the reviewer cited are listed first)

ev_bf95f9a59aca6b51 (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/get-cited/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_ecdc65c4daed1a4c (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/llms-txt/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_94e1c7d340e7a537 (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_d2189b1bfe60b29c (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/pricing/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_8483303927c7c826 (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/sample/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_2b6991b35ed8b852 (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/scan/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_8e71330fba51bb5f (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/about/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_a9d986c68889ec2b (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/terms/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
and 37 more record(s) in the JSON appendix

Where this is documented

Documentation: Creating helpful, reliable, people-first content, Google Search Central
Documentation: FAQPage structured data, Google Search Central
Documentation: Control your snippets in Search, Google Search Central

What this check could not see

Whether a passage answers its heading is a reading judgement. The term-overlap figure locates candidates; it does not grade the answer.

9. TA-01 Priority-question coverage

SubstantialMinor1 point(s) at stake

What we found. Of 10 priority questions, 10 have at least one page covering half or more of their key terms, and 10 have a substantive page of 400 words or more. 10 question(s) have three or more substantive pages competing to answer them.

Do CI-01 first.

Do this.

Take the priority questions recorded at intake and check each against the site.
For any question with no page that answers it, write one.
Where a page half-answers it, add the missing part rather than starting again.
Link related questions to each other so a reader following one lands on the next.

How to tell it worked. Search your site for each priority question and see whether one page answers it.

Why this rating, and who signed it

All ten priority questions have a substantive page of 400 words or more, which is the coverage this check asks for. All ten also have three or more substantive pages competing to answer them, and that number went up as the site grew from 19 sampled pages to 33. Seven new question-shaped pages were added without retiring or consolidating anything, so the site now answers each question in more places than before and gives an engine no single page to prefer.

Signed by Assisted review by Claude Code, 2026-09-17. Not countersigned..

Evidence: 45 record(s) (records the reviewer cited are listed first)

ev_bf95f9a59aca6b51 (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/get-cited/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_323361458f1adb9d (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/entity-recognition/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_94e1c7d340e7a537 (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_d2189b1bfe60b29c (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/pricing/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_8483303927c7c826 (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/sample/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_2b6991b35ed8b852 (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/scan/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_8e71330fba51bb5f (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/about/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_a9d986c68889ec2b (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/terms/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
and 37 more record(s) in the JSON appendix

Where this is documented

Documentation: Creating helpful, reliable, people-first content, Google Search Central
Documentation: FAQPage structured data, Google Search Central

What this check could not see

Term overlap identifies which pages compete for a question. Which of them should own it is an editorial decision.

10. TA-02 First-hand experience

SubstantialMinor1 point(s) at stake

What we found. 33 of 33 sampled pages carry 600 or more words. First-hand markers were detected on 23 page(s): first person operator on 0, measurement on 12, artifact on 18. No link to a public repository, dataset, or downloadable artifact was found in the sample.

Do TA-01 first.

Do this.

Add what you have actually seen: the cases, the numbers, the things that went wrong.
Say who did the work and when.
Show the artefacts where you can: screenshots, extracts, before and after.
Cut the passages that could have been written by somebody who had never done the work.

How to tell it worked. Ask whether a competitor could publish the same page with their name on it. If yes, it carries no experience.

Why this rating, and who signed it

Artifact markers appear on 18 of 33 pages and measurement language on 12, and the artifacts are genuinely first-hand: four complete audit reports, a free-scan sheet, a published rubric with all 33 checks written out, and a drift register naming every place the tool disagrees with its own published output. A competitor cannot restate that material because it is the record of work this operator did. No page uses first-person operator voice and nothing links to a public repository or dataset, so the experience is evidenced by its outputs rather than narrated.

Signed by Assisted review by Claude Code, 2026-09-17. Not countersigned..

Evidence: 45 record(s) (records the reviewer cited are listed first)

ev_4b23aaef1f5c3bf4 (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/remediation/after at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_a64b034a9671a347 (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/rubric/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_94e1c7d340e7a537 (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_d2189b1bfe60b29c (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/pricing/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_8483303927c7c826 (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/sample/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_2b6991b35ed8b852 (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/scan/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_8e71330fba51bb5f (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/about/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_a9d986c68889ec2b (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/terms/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
and 37 more record(s) in the JSON appendix

Where this is documented

Documentation: Creating helpful, reliable, people-first content, Google Search Central

What this check could not see

Artifact and measurement markers are lexical. That the artifacts are genuine first-hand work is a reviewer judgement made by reading them.

11. EN-01 Organization identity consistency

SubstantialMinor1 point(s) at stake

What we found. Structured-data identity names: 'Cite Unseen' on 33 page(s); 'Chris Brock' on 33 page(s). Declared og:site_name values: 'Cite Unseen'. 1 contact value(s) appear in structured data: address(structured). 33 distinct meta description(s) were served across 33 pages.

Do this.

Decide which name is the operating entity and which, if any, are brands or products under it.
Use that name identically in the <title> suffix, the og:site_name, the footer and the Organization structured data.
Publish one page that states who operates the site, where, and how to reach a human, and link it from the footer.
Add Organization structured data with name, url, logo, and sameAs pointing at the profiles you actually control.

How to tell it worked. Search your own brand name and confirm the entity a result describes is the one you meant.

Why this rating, and who signed it

Two names are declared in structured data on all 33 pages, 'Cite Unseen' and 'Chris Brock', with one og:site_name and one structured postal address. They are not a conflict: the footer of every page reads 'Chris Brock LLC dba Cite Unseen', which states the legal entity beside its trading name rather than presenting two identities. Every page carries its own meta description, 33 distinct across 33 pages. What holds this short of complete is that there is a single structured contact path and no sameAs anywhere, so an engine has one route to the entity and no way to corroborate it.

Signed by Assisted review by Claude Code, 2026-09-17. Not countersigned..

Evidence: 44 record(s) (records the reviewer cited are listed first)

ev_8e71330fba51bb5f (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/about/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_94e1c7d340e7a537 (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_d2189b1bfe60b29c (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/pricing/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_8483303927c7c826 (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/sample/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_2b6991b35ed8b852 (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/scan/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_a9d986c68889ec2b (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/terms/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_a64b034a9671a347 (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/rubric/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_5cf58d4252b3944c (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/webmcp/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
and 36 more record(s) in the JSON appendix

Where this is documented

Documentation: Organization structured data, Google Search Central
Documentation: Organization, schema.org
Tool: Schema Markup Validator, schema.org
Video: Structured Data for beginners, Google Search Central

What this check could not see

Whether a trading name and its legal entity should be presented as one identity or two is a business decision, not an observation.

12. TE-02 Expertise and credential support

PartialMinor2 point(s) at stake

What we found. 20 distinct credential-shaped claim(s) were detected across 6 page(s) in 41 occurrence(s); 3 appear within 120 characters of a date. No unexplained logo-wall pattern was detected.

Do this.

State the qualifications, certifications and years that are actually relevant to what you sell.
Link to the issuing body where the credential can be verified.
Drop credentials that sound impressive and mean nothing here.
Attach them to a named person rather than to the company in the abstract.

How to tell it worked. Pick one credential and try to verify it from the page alone.

Why this rating, and who signed it

Twenty credential-shaped claims appear across six pages and three of them sit within 120 characters of a date. Nothing links to an issuer, so none can be checked from the page it appears on. For a service sold on the credibility of its method this is the weakest trust signal on the site, and it is the one an engine has least ability to resolve on the reader's behalf.

Signed by Assisted review by Claude Code, 2026-09-17. Not countersigned..

Evidence: 45 record(s) (records the reviewer cited are listed first)

ev_8e71330fba51bb5f (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/about/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_a64b034a9671a347 (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/rubric/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_94e1c7d340e7a537 (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_d2189b1bfe60b29c (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/pricing/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_8483303927c7c826 (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/sample/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_2b6991b35ed8b852 (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/scan/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_a9d986c68889ec2b (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/terms/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_5cf58d4252b3944c (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/webmcp/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
and 37 more record(s) in the JSON appendix

Where this is documented

Documentation: Person, schema.org
Documentation: Creating helpful, reliable, people-first content, Google Search Central

What this check could not see

Credential-shaped language is detected by pattern. Whether each instance is a credential claim or ordinary description is a reading judgement.

13. CI-04 Source attribution

PartialMinor1.5 point(s) at stake

What we found. 14 of 33 sampled pages link to an external destination that could serve as a source (42.4%). 177 external link(s) were found in total, but own social and code profiles are excluded from the source count. 42 link(s) point at a standards body, government, academic, or research host. 19 page(s) exceed 600 words while citing no external source.

Do this.

Attribute every external fact to its source in the sentence that uses it.
Link the source. A named source with no link is half an attribution.
Say when the source is from, so a reader can tell how old the fact is.
Distinguish your own findings from other people's, explicitly.

How to tell it worked. Take one external fact and try to reach its source in one click.

Why this rating, and who signed it

Corrected mid-review. The check first reported zero links to a standards body on a site that links w3.org, rfc-editor.org and html.spec.whatwg.org; its host list named ISO and NIST and no web standards body at all. With that fixed the sample carries 42 authoritative links out of 177 external ones. The remaining finding is real and is about distribution, not absence: 14 of 33 pages cite an external source and 19 pages over 600 words cite none, so the sourcing is concentrated in the technical pages while the pages that sell the service carry nothing.

Signed by Assisted review by Claude Code, 2026-09-17. Not countersigned..

Evidence: 45 record(s) (records the reviewer cited are listed first)

ev_5cf58d4252b3944c (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/webmcp/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_5766d00cfdb7da01 (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/schema-markup/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_94e1c7d340e7a537 (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_d2189b1bfe60b29c (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/pricing/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_8483303927c7c826 (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/sample/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_2b6991b35ed8b852 (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/scan/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_8e71330fba51bb5f (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/about/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_a9d986c68889ec2b (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/terms/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
and 37 more record(s) in the JSON appendix

Where this is documented

Documentation: Creating helpful, reliable, people-first content, Google Search Central

What this check could not see

A link near a claim is not proof the link supports it. This check counts the presence of citable destinations, not whether each one substantiates the sentence beside it.

15. TE-01 Ownership and accountability

SubstantialMinor1 point(s) at stake

What we found. About-style page(s) found: 2. Contact path(s) found: 0. 1 distinct mailto destination(s) and 3 form(s) appear in the sample. 66 organization or person entit(ies) are declared in structured data.

Do this.

Name the legal entity, its jurisdiction and its location somewhere permanent and linked from every page.
Give a real contact route that reaches a person, not only a form.
Name who is accountable for the work, with a role.
Keep it consistent with your Organization structured data.

How to tell it worked. Try to find out who runs the site using only the site, in under a minute.

Why this rating, and who signed it

The operating entity and its location are stated in the footer of every page, two about-style pages carry the accountability content, 66 organization or person entities are declared, and there is one mailto and three forms. The check reports zero contact paths and that is accurate rather than a defect: the site routes contact through /request/, which no conventional path-name convention matches. A reader finds it from the navigation; an engine looking for a contact page by name does not.

Signed by Assisted review by Claude Code, 2026-09-17. Not countersigned..

Evidence: 45 record(s) (records the reviewer cited are listed first)

ev_8e71330fba51bb5f (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/about/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_f0846c79d9d7d053 (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/request/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_94e1c7d340e7a537 (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_d2189b1bfe60b29c (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/pricing/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_8483303927c7c826 (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/sample/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_2b6991b35ed8b852 (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/scan/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_a9d986c68889ec2b (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/terms/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_a64b034a9671a347 (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/rubric/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
and 37 more record(s) in the JSON appendix

Where this is documented

Documentation: Organization structured data, Google Search Central
Documentation: Organization, schema.org

What this check could not see

Whether a contact route must use a conventional path name is a judgement. The check reports what the path names are, and the mailto and forms are counted separately.

16. TA-04 Internal topic relationships

SubstantialMinor0.75 point(s) at stake

What we found. Across 33 sampled pages the median page links to 23 other sampled page(s). 0 sampled page(s) received no internal link from any other sampled page, and 1 received exactly one.

Do TA-01 first.

Do this.

Link related pages to each other with anchor text that says what the target is about.
Make sure no substantive page is reachable only from the sitemap.
Group pages that belong together under a hub page that links to all of them.
Remove links that exist only for volume; they dilute the ones that mean something.
If a URL you expected in this finding is missing, it declares a canonical naming another page you were shown: it is counted as that page and needs no links of its own.

How to tell it worked. Start at the home page and try to reach each important page in three clicks. Query-string variants of a page you can already reach do not need their own route.

Evidence: 45 record(s)

Where this is documented

Documentation: BreadcrumbList, schema.org
Documentation: Creating helpful, reliable, people-first content, Google Search Central

What this check could not see

Only the 33 sampled pages were analysed; a page may receive links from pages outside the sample.

17. TE-04 Policy and limitation clarity

SubstantialMinor0.75 point(s) at stake

What we found. Privacy policy reference(s): 3. Terms reference(s): 3. 3 form(s) appear in the sample. 33 page(s) show evidence of third-party analytics being loaded.

Do this.

Write down what you do not do, and who you are a bad fit for.
State the terms that actually bite: what is included, what is billed separately, what the refund position is.
Give the limits of any claim you make, in the same place as the claim.
Put these where a buyer will read them before they buy, not only in the terms page.

How to tell it worked. Ask somebody to find, from the site alone, one thing you will not do.

Why this rating, and who signed it

Three privacy references and three terms references cover the three forms in the sample, and there is a cookies page as well. What makes this substantial rather than partial is that the limits are stated in the running copy of the ordinary pages, not only on the terms page: the refusal to promise a ranking, a citation, traffic or revenue appears in the reports themselves, where a buyer actually reads it.

Signed by Assisted review by Claude Code, 2026-09-17. Not countersigned..

Evidence: 45 record(s) (records the reviewer cited are listed first)

ev_a9d986c68889ec2b (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/terms/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_1a325e3e3255a73a (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/privacy/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_94e1c7d340e7a537 (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_d2189b1bfe60b29c (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/pricing/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_8483303927c7c826 (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/sample/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_2b6991b35ed8b852 (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/scan/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_8e71330fba51bb5f (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/about/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_a64b034a9671a347 (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/rubric/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
and 37 more record(s) in the JSON appendix

Where this is documented

Documentation: Creating helpful, reliable, people-first content, Google Search Central

What this check could not see

Whether a published policy is adequate for the data a form collects is a legal judgement this audit does not make.

18. MR-01 Baseline question set

SubstantialMinor0.5 point(s) at stake

What we found. 10 priority question(s) were recorded at intake.

Do this.

Write down the questions you want to be the answer to, before you change anything.
Record today's answer from each engine you care about, with the date and the exact prompt.
Keep the wording fixed. A question you reword is a baseline you have lost.
Store the results where you can compare against them later.

How to tell it worked. Re-run one question a week later and confirm you can tell whether anything moved.

Why this rating, and who signed it

Ten priority questions were recorded at intake and they are the same ten used for the previous audit of this site, so there is a question set and it has held across two runs. It stays short of complete because no baseline date was fixed against it and the wording was written by the operator rather than taken from sales conversations with buyers, which is what the intake file itself asks for.

Signed by Assisted review by Claude Code, 2026-09-17. Not countersigned..

Evidence: 1 record(s) (records the reviewer cited are listed first)

ev_94e1c7d340e7a537 (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)

Where this is documented

Tool: Google Search Console, Google Search Central
Video: Intro to Google Search Console, Google Search Central

What this check could not see

Whether a question set was agreed with customers is not visible from the site or from the audit. This rests on the intake record.

19. EN-02 Product and service identity

SubstantialMinor1 point(s) at stake

What we found. Of 4 operator-supplied offerings, 4 are named in the title or a heading of at least one sampled page, and 3 have exactly one such owning page. 1 Product, Service, or SoftwareApplication entit(ies) are declared in structured data.

Do EN-01 first.

Do this.

List what you actually sell, in the words a buyer would use rather than an internal name.
Give each one a page that says what it is, who it is for, what it costs or how pricing works, and what it excludes.
Add Service or Product structured data on those pages, with the same names the page uses.
Remove or rename anything the site still advertises that you no longer sell.

How to tell it worked. Ask an answer engine what your company sells and compare the answer with your own list.

Why this rating, and who signed it

All four offerings are named in a title or heading, and three own exactly one page: the free scan at /scan/, the audit at /request/, and monitoring at /monitoring/. The recheck audit is still sold in the pricing table without a page of its own, so a buyer who asks what a recheck includes has nowhere to be sent and an engine has no document to cite for it. That gap is unchanged from the previous audit and is the single reason this is not complete.

Signed by Assisted review by Claude Code, 2026-09-17. Not countersigned..

Evidence: 44 record(s) (records the reviewer cited are listed first)

ev_d2189b1bfe60b29c (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/pricing/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_e9141a7c1d2a3408 (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/monitoring/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_94e1c7d340e7a537 (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_8483303927c7c826 (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/sample/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_2b6991b35ed8b852 (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/scan/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_8e71330fba51bb5f (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/about/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_a9d986c68889ec2b (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/terms/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_a64b034a9671a347 (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/rubric/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
and 36 more record(s) in the JSON appendix

Where this is documented

Documentation: Product structured data, Google Search Central
Documentation: Service, schema.org
Tool: Schema Markup Validator, schema.org
Video: How do I get started with structured data?, Google Search Central

What this check could not see

Only one Product, Service or SoftwareApplication entity is declared across the site, so the offering structure is carried by headings rather than by markup.

20. MR-02 Referral and conversion attribution

PartialMinor1 point(s) at stake

What we found. Public markup and response headers indicate 2 analytics or measurement provider(s): google-analytics.com, googletagmanager.com. Whether referrals from AI answer surfaces can be isolated and tied to qualified outcomes cannot be determined from public pages.

Do MR-01 first.

Do this.

Set up analytics that can distinguish AI-referred traffic from search and direct.
Record the referrer where the engines send one, and watch direct traffic for the ones that do not.
Define what a conversion is before you measure it.
Connect Search Console so you can see queries alongside the referrals.

How to tell it worked. Check that a visit arriving from an AI answer shows up somewhere you will look.

Why this rating, and who signed it

Two measurement providers are now detectable from public markup where the previous audit found none: google-analytics.com and googletagmanager.com, loaded on all 33 pages behind a consent bar. Measurement exists, which is the change since the last run. Whether referrals from AI answer surfaces can be isolated and tied to a qualified outcome cannot be read from public pages at all, and no analytics property was made available to this audit, so the attribution half stays unestablished.

Signed by Assisted review by Claude Code, 2026-09-17. Not countersigned..

Evidence: 45 record(s) (records the reviewer cited are listed first)

ev_94e1c7d340e7a537 (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_1ea12af6c3ba05ac (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/cookies/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_d2189b1bfe60b29c (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/pricing/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_8483303927c7c826 (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/sample/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_2b6991b35ed8b852 (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/scan/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_8e71330fba51bb5f (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/about/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_a9d986c68889ec2b (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/terms/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_a64b034a9671a347 (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/rubric/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
and 37 more record(s) in the JSON appendix

Where this is documented

Tool: Google Search Console, Google Search Central
Video: Search Console for Developers, Google Search Central
Video: Intro to Google Search Console, Google Search Central

What this check could not see

Presence of an analytics tag in markup establishes that measurement is loaded. It says nothing about what is configured, reported, or acted on.

21. AC-02 Machine-readable guidance quality

SubstantialMinor0.5 point(s) at stake

What we found. 3 machine-readable guidance file(s) are served: /llms.txt (14282 bytes, 45 link(s)), /llms-full.txt (172250 bytes, 75 link(s)), /.well-known/security.txt (679 bytes, 4 link(s)). /llms-full.txt, /.well-known/security.txt are not a link index, so outbound links in them are not counted: prose quotes URLs, and a site publishing work it did for somebody else has to name that site. These conventions are voluntary. Serving them is not a ranking or citation guarantee, and no engine is known to require them.

Do this.

Publish an llms.txt that points at the pages you most want quoted.
Keep it to real, current, canonical URLs with a line each on what they cover.
Generate it from the same source as your sitemap so the two cannot disagree.
Serve it as text/plain at the root with a 200.

How to tell it worked. Fetch /llms.txt and check every URL in it returns 200 and is canonical.

Evidence: 4 record(s)

ev_58f666cb6b76d87a (http_get on https://citeunseen.io/llms.txt at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_05075a2780d6186d (http_get on https://citeunseen.io/llms-full.txt at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_ce0751eb4898011c (http_get on https://citeunseen.io/ai.txt at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
ev_37a5875facc08b37 (http_get on https://citeunseen.io/.well-known/security.txt at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)

Where this is documented

Documentation: The llms.txt proposal, llms.txt
Documentation: Introduction to robots.txt, Google Search Central

What this check could not see

Whether the content of a guidance file is accurate and current is a reviewer judgement.

What we could not settle

2 check(s) came back inconclusive. The audit established nothing about them, which is not the same as finding a fault, and they took no points away from your score in either direction. Each line says what stopped us.

EN-04 External identity reconciliation. The site links out to 14 distinct external host(s); 1 sameAs URL(s) are declared in structured data. No owned profiles were declared at intake, so nothing could be reconciled. Open each declared and each linked profile, confirm ownership, and record any inconsistency in name, description, or domain.
AC-03 Agent-facing transaction boundaries. 3 page(s) expose a form and 7 mention a purchase surface. The collector never submits a form or performs any state-changing request, so interaction boundaries were not exercised. Read the public documentation for each interactive surface and record what authentication and approval each requires.

What is working

22 of 33 checks reached Substantial or Complete. These are the foundations the remediation work builds on, and they are worth protecting when the site changes.

CI-01 Direct answer passages (Substantial): 22 heading(s) across the sample are phrased as questions. 2 of 33 pages open with a definitional sentence in the first 400 characters. Of 10 operator-supplied priority questions, 10 have a page matching 60% or more of their key terms.
CI-03 Stable passage structure (Complete): Across 33 sampled pages the median page carries 9 heading(s). 33 declare exactly one H1, 33 give at least one heading an id that can be linked directly, and 33 use a table or list.
EN-01 Organization identity consistency (Substantial): Structured-data identity names: 'Cite Unseen' on 33 page(s); 'Chris Brock' on 33 page(s). Declared og:site_name values: 'Cite Unseen'. 1 contact value(s) appear in structured data: address(structured). 33 distinct meta description(s) were served across 33 pages.
EN-02 Product and service identity (Substantial): Of 4 operator-supplied offerings, 4 are named in the title or a heading of at least one sampled page, and 3 have exactly one such owning page. 1 Product, Service, or SoftwareApplication entit(ies) are declared in structured data.
TA-01 Priority-question coverage (Substantial): Of 10 priority questions, 10 have at least one page covering half or more of their key terms, and 10 have a substantive page of 400 words or more. 10 question(s) have three or more substantive pages competing to answer them.
TA-02 First-hand experience (Substantial): 33 of 33 sampled pages carry 600 or more words. First-hand markers were detected on 23 page(s): first person operator on 0, measurement on 12, artifact on 18. No link to a public repository, dataset, or downloadable artifact was found in the sample.
TE-01 Ownership and accountability (Substantial): About-style page(s) found: 2. Contact path(s) found: 0. 1 distinct mailto destination(s) and 3 form(s) appear in the sample. 66 organization or person entit(ies) are declared in structured data.
CI-05 Content freshness signals (Complete): 33 of 33 sampled pages expose a date in visible text, structured data, or a time element (100.0%). 16 of 16 article-style pages carry a date. No contradiction was found between visible and structured dates in the sample.

and 14 further check(s) rated Substantial or better.

Highest-value actions

The same actions as the section above, as a table to sort and hand around. Impact and confidence are scored 1 to 5, higher being better. Points at stake is the rubric points this item can still recover.

Prioritized implementation backlog. Priority = impact^1.5 × (1 + points at stake ÷ 5) × confidence factor ÷ an implementation-cost factor. That last factor is a rough 1 to 5 judgement of how much work a fix is, used to order the list and never published as a duration: we can see what the site is missing and not what it takes to change it. Each item's recommendation is the row beneath its numbers.
#	Action	Severity	Impact	Confidence	Points	Priority	Depends on
1	CR-06 Body text is machine-readable prose	Major	4	5	1	7.11	None
Recommendation for CR-06 Body text is machine-readable prose: Render or remove the template syntax so the published text is the text, and re-check the pages that a buyer reads first.
2	TE-03 Customer and outcome evidence	Critical	4	5	3	6.24	TE-01
Recommendation for TE-03 Customer and outcome evidence: Publish at least one case example with the situation, the intervention, the measurement window, the baseline, and the result, with the customer's permission recorded.
3	CI-02 Claim support	Major	4	3	2.5	6	CI-04
Recommendation for CI-02 Claim support: For each material claim, put its provenance next to it. An external source is strongest. Where none exists -- which is the normal case for a private operating figure -- a first-person attestation is still a source: name who is asserting it, the period it covers, the scope it covers, and the basis ("our internal figures", "verifiable on reference check"). Removing a true claim is the last resort, not the first.
4	EN-03 People and authorship identity	Minor	3	5	2	4.28	EN-01
Recommendation for EN-03 People and authorship identity: Attribute every substantive page to a named person with a linked biography, role, and credentials, and connect that person to the organization in structured data.
5	TA-03 Comparative and decision content	Minor	3	3	2	3.64	None
Recommendation for TA-03 Comparative and decision content: Publish one honest comparison or decision page with a criteria table, and state explicitly where the offering is not the right fit.
6	MR-03 Recheck discipline	Major	2	5	1	3.39	MR-01
Recommendation for MR-03 Recheck discipline: Fix a recheck cadence and record the rubric version, crawl sample, and question set used for each run so score movement can be attributed to the site rather than the method.
7	CI-01 Direct answer passages	Minor	3	3	1.25	3.25	None
Recommendation for CI-01 Direct answer passages: Give each priority question its own heading and a self-contained two-to-four sentence answer directly beneath it.
8	EN-04 External identity reconciliation	Unresolved	2	5	1.5	2.72	EN-01
Recommendation for EN-04 External identity reconciliation: Link every owned profile from the site and declare it in sameAs, and retire or update profiles carrying a former brand.
9	TA-01 Priority-question coverage	Minor	3	3	1	2.59	CI-01
Recommendation for TA-01 Priority-question coverage: Write one substantive owning page for each uncovered priority question, and consolidate pages that compete for the same question.
10	TA-02 First-hand experience	Minor	3	3	1	2.59	TA-01
Recommendation for TA-02 First-hand experience: Publish the method, the numbers, and the artifact behind at least one claim per topic: a repository, a dataset, a template, or a documented before-and-after measurement.
11	EN-01 Organization identity consistency	Minor	2	5	1	2.51	None
Recommendation for EN-01 Organization identity consistency: State one organization or person name, one description, and one contact path consistently in visible content and in structured data on every page.
12	TE-02 Expertise and credential support	Minor	2	3	2	2.49	None
Recommendation for TE-02 Expertise and credential support: State the issuing body, the scope, the date, and the entity the credential belongs to next to every credential claim.
13	CI-04 Source attribution	Minor	2	3	1.5	2.32	None
Recommendation for CI-04 Source attribution: Cite the standard, study, or filing next to the claim it supports, with the source name and date visible in the text rather than only in a link.
14	AC-03 Agent-facing transaction boundaries	Unresolved	2	5	0.5	2.3	None
Recommendation for AC-03 Agent-facing transaction boundaries: Document what each form or endpoint commits the visitor to, require authentication for anything that creates an obligation, and state the approval step in public documentation.
15	TE-01 Ownership and accountability	Minor	2	3	1	2.14	None
Recommendation for TE-01 Ownership and accountability: Name the operating entity, the responsible people, and a working contact path on a linked page, and mirror those facts in structured data.
16	TA-04 Internal topic relationships	Minor	2	3	0.75	2.05	TA-01
Recommendation for TA-04 Internal topic relationships: Link every evidence and educational page from the commercial page it supports, and from a topic index.
17	TE-04 Policy and limitation clarity	Minor	2	3	0.75	2.05	None
Recommendation for TE-04 Policy and limitation clarity: Publish a dated privacy policy covering analytics and form data, and a terms or engagement-scope page that matches what is actually sold.
18	MR-01 Baseline question set	Minor	2	3	0.5	1.96	None
Recommendation for MR-01 Baseline question set: Agree and version a question set covering buying questions, brand variations, comparison questions, and geography, dated before the first measurement.
19	EN-02 Product and service identity	Minor	2	3	1	1.7	EN-01
Recommendation for EN-02 Product and service identity: Give each offering one page with a stable URL, a one-sentence definition, a named audience, and structured data that ties it to the organization.
20	MR-02 Referral and conversion attribution	Minor	2	3	1	1.7	MR-01
Recommendation for MR-02 Referral and conversion attribution: Configure a referral segment for AI answer surfaces and connect it to a defined qualified-outcome event, or record the implementation backlog to do so.
21	AC-02 Machine-readable guidance quality	Minor	1	5	0.5	1.1	None
Recommendation for AC-02 Machine-readable guidance quality: Keep the guidance file generated from the same source as the sitemap so it cannot go stale.

Page-structure checklist

9 good, 3 weak, 1 missing across 13 structural elements. This table scores nothing. It presents observations the checks already made, so the last column names where each row came from.

Structural elements an answer engine looks for.
Element	The question it answers	State	What was observed	From
Answer passages	Does any heading pose the question a buyer asks?	Good	20 question-phrased heading(s) across 44 sampled page(s).	`CI-01`
Linkable passages	Can a single passage be cited by URL?	Good	33 of 44 page(s) give a heading an id.	`CI-03`
Claim support	Does a material claim have something behind it?	Weak	163 distinct material claim candidate(s); 48 state no provenance at all.	`CI-02, CI-04`
Source attribution	Does the site cite anything outside itself?	Weak	14 of 44 page(s) link a destination that could serve as a source.	`CI-04`
Freshness	Can a reader tell when this was last true?	Good	33 of 44 page(s) expose a date.	`CI-05`
Organization identity	Is it unambiguous who publishes this?	Weak	2 declared identity name(s); 1 structured contact value(s).	`EN-01, SD-01`
People and authorship	Does a named person stand behind the expertise?	Good	33 Person entit(ies); 0 article-style page(s) unattributed.	`EN-03`
Offering definition	Can an engine name what is actually sold?	Good	1 Product/Service entit(ies).	`EN-02, SD-01`
Comparison and fit	Does the site say who it is not for?	Good	11 page(s) with comparison language, 33 stating a limitation or fit boundary.	`TA-03`
Structured data	Is the machine-readable description connected?	Good	160 entit(ies), 160 carrying a stable @id.	`SD-01, SD-02`
Contact path	Can a convinced reader reach a human?	Missing	0 contact destination(s), 2 about page(s).	`TE-01`
Policies	Are the data and service boundaries stated?	Good	3 privacy reference(s), 3 terms reference(s).	`TE-04`
Machine-readable guidance	Is there an index written for machines?	Good	/.well-known/security.txt, /llms-full.txt, /llms.txt	`AC-02`

Delivery context

Context for reading the findings. None of this is scored, and no request was made to collect it. It is read from response headers and page text already captured.

Observed delivery characteristics.
Signal	Observed
Transport	Every retained response was served over HTTPS.
HSTS	present, max-age 31,536,000s (includeSubDomains, preload)
Serving infrastructure	Cloudflare (54 response(s))
Reading ease (median)	56, Fairly difficult, across 36 page(s). Hardest: 43.9 at `https://citeunseen.io/sample-tln/report`.

Read from response headers already captured during collection. No additional request was made, and none of this is scored. Reading ease is a readability proxy, not a rubric check. It carries no points. A low score is not automatically a defect: a technical audience may want dense prose.

Every check, and what it rested on

How to read this. The measurements are the tool's; the judgements are a person's; the score is arithmetic over both. No part of this report was written or rated by a language model.

All 33 checks, including the ones that found nothing to do. A check name links to the work it generated, where the finding, the fix and the reviewer’s reasoning are written out once.

CR · Crawl and retrieval accessibility (15 points)

Every crawl and retrieval accessibility check, its rating and the evidence it rests on.
Check	Rating	Severity	Points	Confidence	Evidence
`CR-06` Body text is machine-readable prose	Partial	Major	1 of 2	high	45 record(s) `ev_94e1c7d340e7a537` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_d2189b1bfe60b29c` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/pricing/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_8483303927c7c826` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/sample/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_2b6991b35ed8b852` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/scan/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_8e71330fba51bb5f` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/about/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_a9d986c68889ec2b` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/terms/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_a64b034a9671a347` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/rubric/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_5cf58d4252b3944c` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/webmcp/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) and 37 more in the JSON appendix
`CR-01` Stable successful retrieval	Complete	—	3 of 3	high	45 record(s) `ev_94e1c7d340e7a537` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_d2189b1bfe60b29c` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/pricing/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_8483303927c7c826` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/sample/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_2b6991b35ed8b852` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/scan/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_8e71330fba51bb5f` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/about/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_a9d986c68889ec2b` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/terms/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_a64b034a9671a347` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/rubric/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_5cf58d4252b3944c` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/webmcp/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) and 37 more in the JSON appendix
`CR-02` Robots and crawler directives	Complete	—	3 of 3	high	1 record(s) `ev_2e8cc4796b8aaf11` (robots_parse on https://citeunseen.io/robots.txt at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
`CR-03` Sitemap quality	Complete	—	2 of 2	high	5 record(s) `ev_2e8cc4796b8aaf11` (robots_parse on https://citeunseen.io/robots.txt at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_6d36c7bc0d5d1f5b` (sitemap_parse on https://citeunseen.io/sitemap.xml at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_9bf5ca47b9dd8920` (sitemap_parse on https://citeunseen.io/sitemap_index.xml at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_dc549e966cd28579` (sitemap_parse on https://citeunseen.io/sitemap-index.xml at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_802d8bbe26a5bfef` (derived_analysis on https://citeunseen.io/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
`CR-04` Canonical and duplicate control	Complete	—	2 of 2	high	46 record(s) `ev_94e1c7d340e7a537` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_d2189b1bfe60b29c` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/pricing/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_8483303927c7c826` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/sample/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_2b6991b35ed8b852` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/scan/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_8e71330fba51bb5f` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/about/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_a9d986c68889ec2b` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/terms/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_a64b034a9671a347` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/rubric/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_5cf58d4252b3944c` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/webmcp/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) and 38 more in the JSON appendix
`CR-05` Rendered content availability	Complete	—	3 of 3	high	45 record(s) `ev_94e1c7d340e7a537` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_29deca0d2d2b4823` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/sample/report at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_d2189b1bfe60b29c` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/pricing/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_8483303927c7c826` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/sample/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_2b6991b35ed8b852` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/scan/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_8e71330fba51bb5f` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/about/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_a9d986c68889ec2b` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/terms/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_a64b034a9671a347` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/rubric/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) and 37 more in the JSON appendix

EN · Entity clarity (15 points)

Every entity clarity check, its rating and the evidence it rests on.
Check	Rating	Severity	Points	Confidence	Evidence
`EN-03` People and authorship identity	Partial	Minor	2 of 4	high	44 record(s) `ev_a64b034a9671a347` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/rubric/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_81aabac08d13788b` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/remediation/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_94e1c7d340e7a537` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_d2189b1bfe60b29c` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/pricing/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_8483303927c7c826` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/sample/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_2b6991b35ed8b852` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/scan/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_8e71330fba51bb5f` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/about/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_a9d986c68889ec2b` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/terms/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) and 36 more in the JSON appendix
`EN-04` External identity reconciliation	Inconclusive	Unresolved	unscored	high	44 record(s) `ev_94e1c7d340e7a537` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_d2189b1bfe60b29c` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/pricing/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_8483303927c7c826` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/sample/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_2b6991b35ed8b852` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/scan/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_8e71330fba51bb5f` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/about/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_a9d986c68889ec2b` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/terms/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_a64b034a9671a347` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/rubric/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_5cf58d4252b3944c` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/webmcp/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) and 36 more in the JSON appendix
`EN-01` Organization identity consistency	Substantial	Minor	3 of 4	high	44 record(s) `ev_8e71330fba51bb5f` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/about/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_94e1c7d340e7a537` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_d2189b1bfe60b29c` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/pricing/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_8483303927c7c826` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/sample/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_2b6991b35ed8b852` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/scan/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_a9d986c68889ec2b` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/terms/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_a64b034a9671a347` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/rubric/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_5cf58d4252b3944c` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/webmcp/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) and 36 more in the JSON appendix
`EN-02` Product and service identity	Substantial	Minor	3 of 4	moderate	44 record(s) `ev_d2189b1bfe60b29c` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/pricing/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_e9141a7c1d2a3408` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/monitoring/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_94e1c7d340e7a537` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_8483303927c7c826` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/sample/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_2b6991b35ed8b852` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/scan/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_8e71330fba51bb5f` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/about/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_a9d986c68889ec2b` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/terms/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_a64b034a9671a347` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/rubric/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) and 36 more in the JSON appendix

CI · Citation readiness (20 points)

Every citation readiness check, its rating and the evidence it rests on.
Check	Rating	Severity	Points	Confidence	Evidence
`CI-02` Claim support	Partial	Major	2.5 of 5	moderate	45 record(s) `ev_29deca0d2d2b4823` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/sample/report at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_94e1c7d340e7a537` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_d2189b1bfe60b29c` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/pricing/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_8483303927c7c826` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/sample/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_2b6991b35ed8b852` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/scan/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_8e71330fba51bb5f` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/about/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_a9d986c68889ec2b` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/terms/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_a64b034a9671a347` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/rubric/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) and 37 more in the JSON appendix
`CI-04` Source attribution	Partial	Minor	1.5 of 3	moderate	45 record(s) `ev_5cf58d4252b3944c` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/webmcp/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_5766d00cfdb7da01` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/schema-markup/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_94e1c7d340e7a537` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_d2189b1bfe60b29c` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/pricing/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_8483303927c7c826` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/sample/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_2b6991b35ed8b852` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/scan/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_8e71330fba51bb5f` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/about/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_a9d986c68889ec2b` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/terms/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) and 37 more in the JSON appendix
`CI-01` Direct answer passages	Substantial	Minor	3.75 of 5	moderate	45 record(s) `ev_bf95f9a59aca6b51` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/get-cited/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_ecdc65c4daed1a4c` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/llms-txt/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_94e1c7d340e7a537` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_d2189b1bfe60b29c` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/pricing/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_8483303927c7c826` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/sample/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_2b6991b35ed8b852` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/scan/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_8e71330fba51bb5f` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/about/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_a9d986c68889ec2b` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/terms/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) and 37 more in the JSON appendix
`CI-03` Stable passage structure	Complete	—	4 of 4	high	45 record(s) `ev_94e1c7d340e7a537` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_d2189b1bfe60b29c` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/pricing/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_8483303927c7c826` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/sample/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_2b6991b35ed8b852` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/scan/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_8e71330fba51bb5f` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/about/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_a9d986c68889ec2b` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/terms/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_a64b034a9671a347` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/rubric/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_5cf58d4252b3944c` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/webmcp/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) and 37 more in the JSON appendix
`CI-05` Content freshness signals	Complete	—	3 of 3	high	45 record(s) `ev_94e1c7d340e7a537` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_d2189b1bfe60b29c` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/pricing/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_8483303927c7c826` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/sample/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_2b6991b35ed8b852` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/scan/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_8e71330fba51bb5f` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/about/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_a9d986c68889ec2b` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/terms/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_a64b034a9671a347` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/rubric/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_5cf58d4252b3944c` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/webmcp/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) and 37 more in the JSON appendix

TA · Topical coverage and authority (15 points)

Every topical coverage and authority check, its rating and the evidence it rests on.
Check	Rating	Severity	Points	Confidence	Evidence
`TA-03` Comparative and decision content	Partial	Minor	2 of 4	moderate	45 record(s) `ev_94e1c7d340e7a537` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_d2189b1bfe60b29c` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/pricing/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_8483303927c7c826` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/sample/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_2b6991b35ed8b852` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/scan/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_8e71330fba51bb5f` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/about/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_a9d986c68889ec2b` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/terms/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_a64b034a9671a347` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/rubric/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_5cf58d4252b3944c` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/webmcp/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) and 37 more in the JSON appendix
`TA-01` Priority-question coverage	Substantial	Minor	3 of 4	moderate	45 record(s) `ev_bf95f9a59aca6b51` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/get-cited/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_323361458f1adb9d` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/entity-recognition/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_94e1c7d340e7a537` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_d2189b1bfe60b29c` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/pricing/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_8483303927c7c826` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/sample/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_2b6991b35ed8b852` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/scan/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_8e71330fba51bb5f` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/about/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_a9d986c68889ec2b` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/terms/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) and 37 more in the JSON appendix
`TA-02` First-hand experience	Substantial	Minor	3 of 4	moderate	45 record(s) `ev_4b23aaef1f5c3bf4` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/remediation/after at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_a64b034a9671a347` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/rubric/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_94e1c7d340e7a537` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_d2189b1bfe60b29c` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/pricing/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_8483303927c7c826` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/sample/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_2b6991b35ed8b852` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/scan/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_8e71330fba51bb5f` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/about/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_a9d986c68889ec2b` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/terms/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) and 37 more in the JSON appendix
`TA-04` Internal topic relationships	Substantial	Minor	2.25 of 3	moderate	45 record(s) `ev_94e1c7d340e7a537` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_d2189b1bfe60b29c` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/pricing/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_8483303927c7c826` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/sample/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_2b6991b35ed8b852` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/scan/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_8e71330fba51bb5f` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/about/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_a9d986c68889ec2b` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/terms/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_a64b034a9671a347` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/rubric/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_5cf58d4252b3944c` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/webmcp/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) and 37 more in the JSON appendix

TE · Trust and evidence (15 points)

Every trust and evidence check, its rating and the evidence it rests on.
Check	Rating	Severity	Points	Confidence	Evidence
`TE-03` Customer and outcome evidence	Minimal	Critical	1 of 4	high	45 record(s) `ev_71bd5757dca0c65e` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/sample-tln/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_8483303927c7c826` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/sample/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_94e1c7d340e7a537` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_d2189b1bfe60b29c` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/pricing/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_2b6991b35ed8b852` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/scan/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_8e71330fba51bb5f` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/about/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_a9d986c68889ec2b` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/terms/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_a64b034a9671a347` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/rubric/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) and 37 more in the JSON appendix
`TE-02` Expertise and credential support	Partial	Minor	2 of 4	moderate	45 record(s) `ev_8e71330fba51bb5f` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/about/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_a64b034a9671a347` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/rubric/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_94e1c7d340e7a537` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_d2189b1bfe60b29c` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/pricing/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_8483303927c7c826` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/sample/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_2b6991b35ed8b852` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/scan/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_a9d986c68889ec2b` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/terms/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_5cf58d4252b3944c` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/webmcp/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) and 37 more in the JSON appendix
`TE-01` Ownership and accountability	Substantial	Minor	3 of 4	moderate	45 record(s) `ev_8e71330fba51bb5f` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/about/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_f0846c79d9d7d053` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/request/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_94e1c7d340e7a537` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_d2189b1bfe60b29c` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/pricing/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_8483303927c7c826` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/sample/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_2b6991b35ed8b852` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/scan/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_a9d986c68889ec2b` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/terms/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_a64b034a9671a347` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/rubric/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) and 37 more in the JSON appendix
`TE-04` Policy and limitation clarity	Substantial	Minor	2.25 of 3	moderate	45 record(s) `ev_a9d986c68889ec2b` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/terms/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_1a325e3e3255a73a` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/privacy/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_94e1c7d340e7a537` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_d2189b1bfe60b29c` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/pricing/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_8483303927c7c826` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/sample/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_2b6991b35ed8b852` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/scan/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_8e71330fba51bb5f` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/about/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_a64b034a9671a347` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/rubric/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) and 37 more in the JSON appendix

SD · Structured data (10 points)

Every structured data check, its rating and the evidence it rests on.
Check	Rating	Severity	Points	Confidence	Evidence
`SD-01` Valid core entities	Complete	—	3 of 3	high	44 record(s) `ev_94e1c7d340e7a537` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_d2189b1bfe60b29c` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/pricing/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_8483303927c7c826` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/sample/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_2b6991b35ed8b852` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/scan/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_8e71330fba51bb5f` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/about/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_a9d986c68889ec2b` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/terms/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_a64b034a9671a347` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/rubric/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_5cf58d4252b3944c` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/webmcp/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) and 36 more in the JSON appendix
`SD-02` Entity relationships	Complete	—	3 of 3	high	44 record(s) `ev_94e1c7d340e7a537` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_d2189b1bfe60b29c` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/pricing/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_8483303927c7c826` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/sample/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_2b6991b35ed8b852` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/scan/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_8e71330fba51bb5f` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/about/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_a9d986c68889ec2b` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/terms/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_a64b034a9671a347` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/rubric/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_5cf58d4252b3944c` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/webmcp/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) and 36 more in the JSON appendix
`SD-03` Page-specific markup	Complete	—	2 of 2	high	44 record(s) `ev_94e1c7d340e7a537` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_d2189b1bfe60b29c` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/pricing/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_8483303927c7c826` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/sample/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_2b6991b35ed8b852` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/scan/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_8e71330fba51bb5f` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/about/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_a9d986c68889ec2b` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/terms/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_a64b034a9671a347` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/rubric/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_5cf58d4252b3944c` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/webmcp/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) and 36 more in the JSON appendix
`SD-04` Metadata consistency	Complete	—	2 of 2	high	45 record(s) `ev_94e1c7d340e7a537` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_d2189b1bfe60b29c` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/pricing/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_8483303927c7c826` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/sample/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_2b6991b35ed8b852` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/scan/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_8e71330fba51bb5f` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/about/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_a9d986c68889ec2b` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/terms/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_a64b034a9671a347` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/rubric/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_5cf58d4252b3944c` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/webmcp/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) and 37 more in the JSON appendix

AC · AI and agent controls (5 points)

Every ai and agent controls check, its rating and the evidence it rests on.
Check	Rating	Severity	Points	Confidence	Evidence
`AC-03` Agent-facing transaction boundaries	Inconclusive	Unresolved	unscored	high	45 record(s) `ev_f0846c79d9d7d053` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/request/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_d2189b1bfe60b29c` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/pricing/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_94e1c7d340e7a537` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_8483303927c7c826` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/sample/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_2b6991b35ed8b852` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/scan/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_8e71330fba51bb5f` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/about/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_a9d986c68889ec2b` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/terms/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_a64b034a9671a347` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/rubric/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) and 37 more in the JSON appendix
`AC-02` Machine-readable guidance quality	Substantial	Minor	1.5 of 2	high	4 record(s) `ev_58f666cb6b76d87a` (http_get on https://citeunseen.io/llms.txt at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_05075a2780d6186d` (http_get on https://citeunseen.io/llms-full.txt at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_ce0751eb4898011c` (http_get on https://citeunseen.io/ai.txt at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_37a5875facc08b37` (http_get on https://citeunseen.io/.well-known/security.txt at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
`AC-01` Intentional crawler treatment	Complete	—	2 of 2	high	2 record(s) `ev_2e8cc4796b8aaf11` (robots_parse on https://citeunseen.io/robots.txt at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_7dcd9002e4998e6f` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/ai-crawlers/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)

MR · Measurement readiness (5 points)

Every measurement readiness check, its rating and the evidence it rests on.
Check	Rating	Severity	Points	Confidence	Evidence
`MR-03` Recheck discipline	Missing	Major	0 of 1	high	1 record(s) `ev_81aabac08d13788b` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/remediation/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)
`MR-02` Referral and conversion attribution	Partial	Minor	1 of 2	moderate	45 record(s) `ev_94e1c7d340e7a537` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_1ea12af6c3ba05ac` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/cookies/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_d2189b1bfe60b29c` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/pricing/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_8483303927c7c826` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/sample/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_2b6991b35ed8b852` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/scan/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_8e71330fba51bb5f` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/about/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_a9d986c68889ec2b` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/terms/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) `ev_a64b034a9671a347` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/rubric/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00) and 37 more in the JSON appendix
`MR-01` Baseline question set	Substantial	Minor	1.5 of 2	moderate	1 record(s) `ev_94e1c7d340e7a537` (html_parse on https://citeunseen.io/ at 2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00)

Page-by-page collection results

44 page(s) collected in 70.11 seconds across 56 request(s), 3,341,566 bytes.

1 URL(s) were not collected because robots.txt disallows them, and 0 were outside the authorized scope.

Every URL the collector attempted, with the evidence record produced for it.
URL	Status	Outcome	Title	Words	Depth	Evidence
`https://citeunseen.io/`	200	success	Cite Unseen — an evidence-backed AI discoverability audit	1863	0	`ev_94e1c7d340e7a537`
`https://citeunseen.io/pricing/`	200	success	Pricing — Cite Unseen	1149	0	`ev_d2189b1bfe60b29c`
`https://citeunseen.io/sample/`	200	success	The sample audit — Cite Unseen	1390	0	`ev_8483303927c7c826`
`https://citeunseen.io/scan/`	200	success	The free AI visibility scan — Cite Unseen	943	1	`ev_2b6991b35ed8b852`
`https://citeunseen.io/about/`	200	success	Who runs Cite Unseen — one operator, named	1318	1	`ev_8e71330fba51bb5f`
`https://citeunseen.io/terms/`	200	success	Terms: what we owe and what we refuse to promise — Cite Unseen	1346	1	`ev_a9d986c68889ec2b`
`https://citeunseen.io/rubric/`	200	success	The rubric — 8 dimensions, 33 checks, 100 points	1050	1	`ev_a64b034a9671a347`
`https://citeunseen.io/webmcp/`	200	success	What WebMCP is, and what it is not — Cite Unseen	1116	1	`ev_5cf58d4252b3944c`
`https://citeunseen.io/cookies/`	200	success	Cookies — Cite Unseen	1317	1	`ev_1ea12af6c3ba05ac`
`https://citeunseen.io/privacy/`	200	success	Privacy: what we collect, and what we don't — Cite Unseen	1800	1	`ev_1a325e3e3255a73a`
`https://citeunseen.io/request/`	200	success	Request an audit — Cite Unseen	1072	1	`ev_f0846c79d9d7d053`
`https://citeunseen.io/llms-txt/`	200	success	What is llms.txt, and does anything read it? — Cite Unseen	717	1	`ev_ecdc65c4daed1a4c`
`https://citeunseen.io/get-cited/`	200	success	How do you get cited by an AI answer engine? — Cite Unseen	865	1	`ev_bf95f9a59aca6b51`
`https://citeunseen.io/monitoring/`	200	success	Audits and AI visibility monitoring — Cite Unseen	1283	1	`ev_e9141a7c1d2a3408`
`https://citeunseen.io/sample-tln/`	200	success	The redacted sample — Cite Unseen	1146	1	`ev_71bd5757dca0c65e`
`https://citeunseen.io/ai-crawlers/`	200	success	Does robots.txt block ChatGPT? How AI crawlers actually read your site — Cite Unseen	878	1	`ev_7dcd9002e4998e6f`
`https://citeunseen.io/remediation/`	200	success	What our own audit found, and what we did about it — Cite Unseen	2844	1	`ev_81aabac08d13788b`
`https://citeunseen.io/schema-markup/`	200	success	Schema markup for AI search: what actually needs to be there — Cite Unseen	800	1	`ev_5766d00cfdb7da01`
`https://citeunseen.io/entity-recognition/`	200	success	Why doesn't AI know about my company? — Cite Unseen	798	1	`ev_323361458f1adb9d`
`https://citeunseen.io/remediation/after`	200	success	AI Discoverability Implementation Audit: citeunseen.io (after)	17481	1	`ev_4b23aaef1f5c3bf4`
`https://citeunseen.io/rubric/entity-clarity/`	200	success	Entity clarity — the Cite Unseen rubric	1332	1	`ev_f75399a51810712f`
`https://citeunseen.io/sample/report`	200	success	AI Discoverability Implementation Audit: chrisbrock.io	29248	1	`ev_29deca0d2d2b4823`
`https://citeunseen.io/sample-scan/scan`	200	success	Free scan — chrisbrock.io	2168	1	`ev_23e81b926f908132`
`https://citeunseen.io/sample-tln/report`	200	success	AI Discoverability Implementation Audit — tln.example	12735	1	`ev_f948fd7832c594ae`
`https://citeunseen.io/webmcp/status/`	200	success	WebMCP browser support and specification status — Cite Unseen	825	1	`ev_c00ca6bfb569c220`
`https://citeunseen.io/remediation/baseline`	200	success	AI Discoverability Implementation Audit: citeunseen.io (baseline)	21108	1	`ev_55cbe7a8d2fc0f5b`
`https://citeunseen.io/rubric/structured-data/`	200	success	Structured data — the Cite Unseen rubric	1287	1	`ev_e507aefe6df84830`
`https://citeunseen.io/rubric/topical-authority/`	200	success	Topical coverage and authority — the Cite Unseen rubric	1303	1	`ev_1e9dd3baa396740b`
`https://citeunseen.io/rubric/citation-readiness/`	200	success	Citation readiness — the Cite Unseen rubric	1479	1	`ev_821789d5c759509e`
`https://citeunseen.io/rubric/trust-and-evidence/`	200	success	Trust and evidence — the Cite Unseen rubric	1219	1	`ev_b25c7eccf9dd13e7`
`https://citeunseen.io/rubric/crawl-and-retrieval/`	200	success	Crawl and retrieval accessibility — the Cite Unseen rubric	1737	1	`ev_3bfefbce0bdd8629`
`https://citeunseen.io/rubric/ai-and-agent-controls/`	200	success	AI and agent controls — the Cite Unseen rubric	1252	1	`ev_21314bc6cee8f1db`
`https://citeunseen.io/rubric/measurement-readiness/`	200	success	Measurement readiness — the Cite Unseen rubric	1085	1	`ev_2532388c8460fab5`
`https://citeunseen.io/request/?tier=audit`	200	success	Request an audit — Cite Unseen	1072	1	`ev_b5c8d4eac2e580b7`
`https://citeunseen.io/request/?tier=audit-plus`	200	success	Request an audit — Cite Unseen	1072	1	`ev_52e47680617e655f`
`https://citeunseen.io/request/?tier=monitoring`	200	success	Request an audit — Cite Unseen	1072	1	`ev_7a602aa601ecf29f`
`https://citeunseen.io/llms.txt`	200	success	—	—	1	`ev_3c9a5b1be1a741aa`
`https://citeunseen.io/.well-known/security.txt`	200	success	—	—	1	`ev_8f3a21a8097a025f`
`https://citeunseen.io/sample/audit-result.json`	200	success	—	—	1	`ev_c471215fb868b7a4`
`https://citeunseen.io/sample/decisions.json`	200	success	—	—	1	`ev_cf889906863b53c2`
`https://citeunseen.io/sample/fix-prompt.md`	200	success	—	—	1	`ev_6f69ea989ce91a10`
`https://citeunseen.io/sample-tln/fix-prompt.md`	200	success	—	—	2	`ev_b3ae20c7a78117e2`
`https://citeunseen.io/remediation/after-audit-result.json`	200	success	—	—	2	`ev_db2bff51241a1edf`
`https://citeunseen.io/remediation/baseline-audit-result.json`	200	success	—	—	2	`ev_5ecc1d6fff1727e4`

Entity and source-consistency map

How this site names itself, who it attributes work to, and which external properties it connects to.

Declared identity values across the sample.
Source	Value	Seen on
Structured data name	Cite Unseen	33 page(s)
Structured data name	Chris Brock	33 page(s)
og:site_name	Cite Unseen	33 page(s)

People and authorship

Chris Brock, Operator (no external profile links)
Chris Brock, Operator (no external profile links)
Chris Brock, Operator (no external profile links)
Chris Brock, Operator (no external profile links)
Chris Brock, Operator (no external profile links)
Chris Brock, Operator (no external profile links)
Chris Brock, Operator (no external profile links)
Chris Brock, Operator (no external profile links)
Chris Brock, Operator (no external profile links)
Chris Brock, Operator (no external profile links)
Chris Brock, Operator (no external profile links)
Chris Brock, Operator (no external profile links)
Chris Brock, Operator (no external profile links)
Chris Brock, Operator (no external profile links)
Chris Brock, Operator (no external profile links)
Chris Brock, Operator (no external profile links)
Chris Brock, Operator (no external profile links)
Chris Brock, Operator (no external profile links)
Chris Brock, Operator (no external profile links)
Chris Brock (no external profile links)
Chris Brock, Operator (no external profile links)
Chris Brock (no external profile links)
Chris Brock (no external profile links)
Chris Brock (no external profile links)
Chris Brock, Operator (no external profile links)
Chris Brock (no external profile links)
Chris Brock, Operator (no external profile links)
Chris Brock, Operator (no external profile links)
Chris Brock, Operator (no external profile links)
Chris Brock, Operator (no external profile links)
Chris Brock, Operator (no external profile links)
Chris Brock, Operator (no external profile links)
Chris Brock, Operator (no external profile links)

Structured-data identifiers

160 of 160 entities declare a stable @id. Unresolvable references:

None

Answer-ready content briefs

No uncovered priority question was identified from the supplied question set and the sampled pages.

Structured-data backlog

No structured-data remediation is outstanding.

Thirty-day implementation sequence

Ordered so that no item is scheduled before the work it depends on.

Days 1-7: retrieval, identity, and directives

#1 CR-06 Body text is machine-readable prose: Render or remove the template syntax so the published text is the text, and re-check the pages that a buyer reads first.
#11 EN-01 Organization identity consistency: State one organization or person name, one description, and one contact path consistently in visible content and in structured data on every page.
#14 AC-03 Agent-facing transaction boundaries: Document what each form or endpoint commits the visitor to, require authentication for anything that creates an obligation, and state the approval step in public documentation.
#21 AC-02 Machine-readable guidance quality: Keep the guidance file generated from the same source as the sitemap so it cannot go stale.

Days 8-16: structure, evidence, and structured data

#4 EN-03 People and authorship identity: Attribute every substantive page to a named person with a linked biography, role, and credentials, and connect that person to the organization in structured data.
#7 CI-01 Direct answer passages: Give each priority question its own heading and a self-contained two-to-four sentence answer directly beneath it.
#8 EN-04 External identity reconciliation: Link every owned profile from the site and declare it in sameAs, and retire or update profiles carrying a former brand.
#12 TE-02 Expertise and credential support: State the issuing body, the scope, the date, and the entity the credential belongs to next to every credential claim.
#13 CI-04 Source attribution: Cite the standard, study, or filing next to the claim it supports, with the source name and date visible in the text rather than only in a link.
#15 TE-01 Ownership and accountability: Name the operating entity, the responsible people, and a working contact path on a linked page, and mirror those facts in structured data.
#17 TE-04 Policy and limitation clarity: Publish a dated privacy policy covering analytics and form data, and a terms or engagement-scope page that matches what is actually sold.
#19 EN-02 Product and service identity: Give each offering one page with a stable URL, a one-sentence definition, a named audience, and structured data that ties it to the organization.

Days 17-30: coverage, comparison, and measurement

#2 TE-03 Customer and outcome evidence: Publish at least one case example with the situation, the intervention, the measurement window, the baseline, and the result, with the customer's permission recorded.
#3 CI-02 Claim support: For each material claim, put its provenance next to it. An external source is strongest. Where none exists -- which is the normal case for a private operating figure -- a first-person attestation is still a source: name who is asserting it, the period it covers, the scope it covers, and the basis ("our internal figures", "verifiable on reference check"). Removing a true claim is the last resort, not the first.
#5 TA-03 Comparative and decision content: Publish one honest comparison or decision page with a criteria table, and state explicitly where the offering is not the right fit.
#6 MR-03 Recheck discipline: Fix a recheck cadence and record the rubric version, crawl sample, and question set used for each run so score movement can be attributed to the site rather than the method.
#9 TA-01 Priority-question coverage: Write one substantive owning page for each uncovered priority question, and consolidate pages that compete for the same question.
#10 TA-02 First-hand experience: Publish the method, the numbers, and the artifact behind at least one claim per topic: a repository, a dataset, a template, or a documented before-and-after measurement.
#16 TA-04 Internal topic relationships: Link every evidence and educational page from the commercial page it supports, and from a topic index.
#18 MR-01 Baseline question set: Agree and version a question set covering buying questions, brand variations, comparison questions, and geography, dated before the first measurement.
#20 MR-02 Referral and conversion attribution: Configure a referral segment for AI answer surfaces and connect it to a defined qualified-outcome event, or record the implementation backlog to do so.

Measurement plan and limitations

Baseline question set

What is an AI discoverability audit and what does it actually measure?
How is this different from SEO?
What do I get for the money, and what does it cost?
How long does an audit take to deliver?
What does the audit refuse to promise?
Can I see a real report before I buy?
How do you collect the evidence, and what does your crawler do to my site?
What happens to my data and how long do you keep the report?
Do you guarantee my site will be cited by ChatGPT or Google?
How do I fix what the audit finds?

Analytics providers visible in public markup: google-analytics.com, googletagmanager.com.

Next steps

Version the question set and date it before the first measurement.
Create a referral segment for AI answer surfaces and connect it to a defined qualified-outcome event.
Fix a recheck cadence and record the rubric version, crawl sample, and question set used for each run.

What this measurement cannot tell you

Whether any AI answer product currently cites the site.
Whether a change to the site causes a change in citation, ranking, traffic, or revenue.

Limitations of this audit

This audit sampled 44 page(s) against a configured limit of 200 at a maximum depth of 3. Findings describe the sample, not every page on the site.
Scored against rubric version 0.6 using tool version adia/0.1.0. Score movement between runs can come from a rubric change as easily as a site change.
Collection used plain HTTP retrieval with no JavaScript execution. Content that appears only after client-side rendering was not observed.
Off-domain properties were not retrieved. The run was restricted to the authorized registrable domain.
No form was submitted, no authenticated content was accessed, and no state-changing request was made.
2 check(s) are inconclusive and contribute no points in either direction: EN-04, AC-03. Their 4 points were removed from the denominator rather than scored as zeroes.
This audit measures conditions a site can control against rubric version 0.6. It does not guarantee placement, ranking, citation, recommendation, traffic, leads, or revenue in any search engine or AI answer product, and a low score does not prove a site is absent from AI-generated answers.

Agent tooling, observed and not scored

An engine that cites you is reading. An agent that books your appointment is acting. This audit measures the first. WebMCP, the proposal for the second, lets a page register JavaScript functions an agent can call, through document.modelContext.registerTool().

None of the 33 sampled pages declares agent tooling. That is the ordinary state of the web today and it costs this audit nothing: no check gains or loses a point either way.

Where the standard stands

A Draft Community Group Report at the W3C Web Machine Learning Community Group, dated 15 September 2026, which states on its face that it is not a W3C Standard and is not on the W3C Standards Track.

WebMCP implementation state, read from the specification’s own implementation table on 17 September 2026
Implementation	State
Chrome	origin trial live in Chrome 149, running to 156
Edge	origin trial live in Edge 150
ChatGPT Desktop	supported
Brave	experimental, in Leo
Firefox	under standards review, no support
Safari	under standards review, no support

Read from the specification and its own implementation table on 17 September 2026. Two things are worth knowing before anybody acts on a blog post about this. Much of the secondary coverage says the API is navigator.modelContext; the specification and Chrome’s documentation both say document.modelContext. And the declarative HTML form syntax that several demos show is section 4.3 of the specification, which currently reads, in full, that it is a TODO.

What we are not telling you

We are not telling you to adopt this, and we are not telling you it would bring you agent traffic. Nobody has published usage data that would support the second claim, and the adoption figures in circulation carry no methodology anywhere they appear. Exposing callable tools also widens what an agent can do on your site while prompt injection is unsettled, and we cannot see your authorisation model from the outside. When this is worth acting on, it will be worth acting on with your engineers rather than on our say-so.

Machine-readable JSON appendix

The complete audit result, including every evidence record, is published alongside this report as today-audit-result.json. That file is the source of truth; this page is rendered from it and adds no facts.

Evidence index (55 records)

Every observation captured during this run.
Evidence ID	Method	URL	Status	Outcome	Observed (UTC)	Content hash	Checks
`ev_2e8cc4796b8aaf11`	robots_parse	`https://citeunseen.io/robots.txt`	200	success	2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00	`sha256:8c7f0fb66e46c484…`	CR-02, CR-03, AC-01
`ev_6d36c7bc0d5d1f5b`	sitemap_parse	`https://citeunseen.io/sitemap.xml`	200	success	2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00	`sha256:a3eef456d24b4446…`	CR-03
`ev_9bf5ca47b9dd8920`	sitemap_parse	`https://citeunseen.io/sitemap_index.xml`	404	failed	2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00	`sha256:89f863a6ead34e1f…`	CR-03
`ev_dc549e966cd28579`	sitemap_parse	`https://citeunseen.io/sitemap-index.xml`	404	failed	2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00	`sha256:89f863a6ead34e1f…`	CR-03
`ev_94e1c7d340e7a537`	html_parse	`https://citeunseen.io/`	200	success	2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00	`sha256:ae05de13f5e2a051…`	CR-01, CR-04, CR-05, CI-01, CI-02, CI-03
`ev_d2189b1bfe60b29c`	html_parse	`https://citeunseen.io/pricing/`	200	success	2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00	`sha256:4833262ac75f21ad…`	CR-01, CR-04, CR-05, CI-01, CI-02, CI-03
`ev_8483303927c7c826`	html_parse	`https://citeunseen.io/sample/`	200	success	2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00	`sha256:166fd172d28c58ae…`	CR-01, CR-04, CR-05, CI-01, CI-02, CI-03
`ev_2b6991b35ed8b852`	html_parse	`https://citeunseen.io/scan/`	200	success	2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00	`sha256:31bf81bed7903551…`	CR-01, CR-04, CR-05, CI-01, CI-02, CI-03
`ev_8e71330fba51bb5f`	html_parse	`https://citeunseen.io/about/`	200	success	2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00	`sha256:a66fe70c59ee0e3a…`	CR-01, CR-04, CR-05, CI-01, CI-02, CI-03
`ev_a9d986c68889ec2b`	html_parse	`https://citeunseen.io/terms/`	200	success	2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00	`sha256:def8f3a9090ef059…`	CR-01, CR-04, CR-05, CI-01, CI-02, CI-03
`ev_a64b034a9671a347`	html_parse	`https://citeunseen.io/rubric/`	200	success	2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00	`sha256:cfc2daee26ee8d5f…`	CR-01, CR-04, CR-05, CI-01, CI-02, CI-03
`ev_5cf58d4252b3944c`	html_parse	`https://citeunseen.io/webmcp/`	200	success	2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00	`sha256:6bfd64dd38483b1e…`	CR-01, CR-04, CR-05, CI-01, CI-02, CI-03
`ev_1ea12af6c3ba05ac`	html_parse	`https://citeunseen.io/cookies/`	200	success	2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00	`sha256:b33e094ab0c9c43c…`	CR-01, CR-04, CR-05, CI-01, CI-02, CI-03
`ev_1a325e3e3255a73a`	html_parse	`https://citeunseen.io/privacy/`	200	success	2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00	`sha256:698f6c3b9fd61d98…`	CR-01, CR-04, CR-05, CI-01, CI-02, CI-03
`ev_f0846c79d9d7d053`	html_parse	`https://citeunseen.io/request/`	200	success	2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00	`sha256:7ad9a7d6ed0b9361…`	CR-01, CR-04, CR-05, CI-01, CI-02, CI-03
`ev_ecdc65c4daed1a4c`	html_parse	`https://citeunseen.io/llms-txt/`	200	success	2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00	`sha256:3b7b542290c6e7ef…`	CR-01, CR-04, CR-05, CI-01, CI-02, CI-03
`ev_bf95f9a59aca6b51`	html_parse	`https://citeunseen.io/get-cited/`	200	success	2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00	`sha256:60ee62344b6a457d…`	CR-01, CR-04, CR-05, CI-01, CI-02, CI-03
`ev_e9141a7c1d2a3408`	html_parse	`https://citeunseen.io/monitoring/`	200	success	2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00	`sha256:fad1d0818fa01cd0…`	CR-01, CR-04, CR-05, CI-01, CI-02, CI-03
`ev_71bd5757dca0c65e`	html_parse	`https://citeunseen.io/sample-tln/`	200	success	2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00	`sha256:826b59dd526dfeec…`	CR-01, CR-04, CR-05, CI-01, CI-02, CI-03
`ev_7dcd9002e4998e6f`	html_parse	`https://citeunseen.io/ai-crawlers/`	200	success	2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00	`sha256:d8b0bc8672b0d36e…`	CR-01, CR-04, CR-05, CI-01, CI-02, CI-03
`ev_81aabac08d13788b`	html_parse	`https://citeunseen.io/remediation/`	200	success	2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00	`sha256:aa5c6be2b6b90a55…`	CR-01, CR-04, CR-05, CI-01, CI-02, CI-03
`ev_5766d00cfdb7da01`	html_parse	`https://citeunseen.io/schema-markup/`	200	success	2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00	`sha256:95af547042d97314…`	CR-01, CR-04, CR-05, CI-01, CI-02, CI-03
`ev_323361458f1adb9d`	html_parse	`https://citeunseen.io/entity-recognition/`	200	success	2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00	`sha256:81d35f1df18e0b8c…`	CR-01, CR-04, CR-05, CI-01, CI-02, CI-03
`ev_4b23aaef1f5c3bf4`	html_parse	`https://citeunseen.io/remediation/after`	200	success	2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00	`sha256:a0537431464de7f7…`	CR-01, CR-04, CR-05, CI-01, CI-02, CI-03
`ev_f75399a51810712f`	html_parse	`https://citeunseen.io/rubric/entity-clarity/`	200	success	2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00	`sha256:08943c43bb898ac3…`	CR-01, CR-04, CR-05, CI-01, CI-02, CI-03
`ev_29deca0d2d2b4823`	html_parse	`https://citeunseen.io/sample/report`	200	success	2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00	`sha256:bc152b1ea70afc46…`	CR-01, CR-04, CR-05, CI-01, CI-02, CI-03
`ev_23e81b926f908132`	html_parse	`https://citeunseen.io/sample-scan/scan`	200	success	2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00	`sha256:6b6bfd9541289622…`	CR-01, CR-04, CR-05, CI-01, CI-02, CI-03
`ev_f948fd7832c594ae`	html_parse	`https://citeunseen.io/sample-tln/report`	200	success	2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00	`sha256:5834dc9a08c91f9a…`	CR-01, CR-04, CR-05, CI-01, CI-02, CI-03
`ev_c00ca6bfb569c220`	html_parse	`https://citeunseen.io/webmcp/status/`	200	success	2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00	`sha256:89d08c4052fc4e34…`	CR-01, CR-04, CR-05, CI-01, CI-02, CI-03
`ev_55cbe7a8d2fc0f5b`	html_parse	`https://citeunseen.io/remediation/baseline`	200	success	2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00	`sha256:e9a7889ec2c46995…`	CR-01, CR-04, CR-05, CI-01, CI-02, CI-03
`ev_e507aefe6df84830`	html_parse	`https://citeunseen.io/rubric/structured-data/`	200	success	2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00	`sha256:87a02de733c81218…`	CR-01, CR-04, CR-05, CI-01, CI-02, CI-03
`ev_1e9dd3baa396740b`	html_parse	`https://citeunseen.io/rubric/topical-authority/`	200	success	2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00	`sha256:df102a92654c018c…`	CR-01, CR-04, CR-05, CI-01, CI-02, CI-03
`ev_821789d5c759509e`	html_parse	`https://citeunseen.io/rubric/citation-readiness/`	200	success	2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00	`sha256:32d13f1770817460…`	CR-01, CR-04, CR-05, CI-01, CI-02, CI-03
`ev_b25c7eccf9dd13e7`	html_parse	`https://citeunseen.io/rubric/trust-and-evidence/`	200	success	2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00	`sha256:2fa428728a9a332a…`	CR-01, CR-04, CR-05, CI-01, CI-02, CI-03
`ev_3bfefbce0bdd8629`	html_parse	`https://citeunseen.io/rubric/crawl-and-retrieval/`	200	success	2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00	`sha256:bcbf08ae5b0a3e5e…`	CR-01, CR-04, CR-05, CI-01, CI-02, CI-03
`ev_21314bc6cee8f1db`	html_parse	`https://citeunseen.io/rubric/ai-and-agent-controls/`	200	success	2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00	`sha256:536b676bfd07240e…`	CR-01, CR-04, CR-05, CI-01, CI-02, CI-03
`ev_2532388c8460fab5`	html_parse	`https://citeunseen.io/rubric/measurement-readiness/`	200	success	2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00	`sha256:531fd7ec0a6c30e9…`	CR-01, CR-04, CR-05, CI-01, CI-02, CI-03
`ev_b5c8d4eac2e580b7`	html_parse	`https://citeunseen.io/request/?tier=audit`	200	success	2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00	`sha256:7ad9a7d6ed0b9361…`	CR-01, CR-04, CR-05, CI-01, CI-02, CI-03
`ev_52e47680617e655f`	html_parse	`https://citeunseen.io/request/?tier=audit-plus`	200	success	2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00	`sha256:7ad9a7d6ed0b9361…`	CR-01, CR-04, CR-05, CI-01, CI-02, CI-03
`ev_7a602aa601ecf29f`	html_parse	`https://citeunseen.io/request/?tier=monitoring`	200	success	2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00	`sha256:7ad9a7d6ed0b9361…`	CR-01, CR-04, CR-05, CI-01, CI-02, CI-03
`ev_3c9a5b1be1a741aa`	http_get	`https://citeunseen.io/llms.txt`	200	success	2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00	`sha256:ac23e6ab4f815edc…`	CR-01, CR-04, CR-05, CI-01, CI-02, CI-03
`ev_8f3a21a8097a025f`	http_get	`https://citeunseen.io/.well-known/security.txt`	200	success	2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00	`sha256:bac7b7580c51f998…`	CR-01, CR-04, CR-05, CI-01, CI-02, CI-03
`ev_c471215fb868b7a4`	http_get	`https://citeunseen.io/sample/audit-result.json`	200	success	2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00	`sha256:e1cab410129d97ec…`	CR-01, CR-04, CR-05, CI-01, CI-02, CI-03
`ev_cf889906863b53c2`	http_get	`https://citeunseen.io/sample/decisions.json`	200	success	2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00	`sha256:f644abca67b572a2…`	CR-01, CR-04, CR-05, CI-01, CI-02, CI-03
`ev_6f69ea989ce91a10`	http_get	`https://citeunseen.io/sample/fix-prompt.md`	200	success	2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00	`sha256:e3b0c44298fc1c14…`	CR-01, CR-04, CR-05, CI-01, CI-02, CI-03
`ev_b3ae20c7a78117e2`	http_get	`https://citeunseen.io/sample-tln/fix-prompt.md`	200	success	2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00	`sha256:e3b0c44298fc1c14…`	CR-01, CR-04, CR-05, CI-01, CI-02, CI-03
`ev_db2bff51241a1edf`	http_get	`https://citeunseen.io/remediation/after-audit-result.json`	200	success	2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00	`sha256:89600a2d33cb23fe…`	CR-01, CR-04, CR-05, CI-01, CI-02, CI-03
`ev_5ecc1d6fff1727e4`	http_get	`https://citeunseen.io/remediation/baseline-audit-result.json`	200	success	2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00	`sha256:eb5d9b7483c2a41c…`	CR-01, CR-04, CR-05, CI-01, CI-02, CI-03
`ev_58f666cb6b76d87a`	http_get	`https://citeunseen.io/llms.txt`	200	success	2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00	`sha256:ac23e6ab4f815edc…`	AC-02
`ev_05075a2780d6186d`	http_get	`https://citeunseen.io/llms-full.txt`	200	success	2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00	`sha256:856981bea2294e86…`	AC-02
`ev_ce0751eb4898011c`	http_get	`https://citeunseen.io/ai.txt`	404	failed	2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00	`sha256:89f863a6ead34e1f…`	AC-02
`ev_37a5875facc08b37`	http_get	`https://citeunseen.io/.well-known/security.txt`	200	success	2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00	`sha256:bac7b7580c51f998…`	AC-02
`ev_8ce0c62aedb1d155`	http_head	`https://citeunseen.io/`	200	success	2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00	`sha256:e3b0c44298fc1c14…`	CR-04
`ev_4352fa43ef3b18e7`	http_head	`https://citeunseen.io/`	200	success	2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00	`sha256:e3b0c44298fc1c14…`	CR-04
`ev_802d8bbe26a5bfef`	derived_analysis	`https://citeunseen.io/`	—	success	2026-09-17T02:15:39+00:00	`sha256:3e5202d9e6da4411…`	CR-01, CR-03, TA-01, TA-04

Scoring methodology and rating scale

Rubric version 0.6 carries 100 points across 8 dimensions and 33 checks. A check marked not applicable, or left inconclusive, is removed from the denominator rather than scored as zero.

Rating scale.
Rating	Points awarded	Meaning
Complete	100% of the check's points	Clear, consistent, and evidenced implementation
Substantial	75% of the check's points	Strong implementation with limited gaps
Partial	50% of the check's points	Useful implementation with material gaps
Minimal	25% of the check's points	Weak or inconsistent evidence
Missing	0% of the check's points	No support found or a reproducible failure exists
Inconclusive	Unscored; removed from the denominator	Collection or scope prevents a reliable decision
Not applicable	Unscored; removed from the denominator	The check does not apply to this target; its points leave the denominator

Scoring rules

Every awarded or deducted point requires captured evidence.
Evidence must include the URL, observation time, collection method, and relevant excerpt or machine result.
Deterministic checks run before LLM interpretation.
An LLM may summarize evidence but may not create a fact, credential, relationship, or technical result.
A check marked not applicable removes its points from the denominator. The report must show the adjusted denominator.
A technical failure to retrieve evidence is not automatically a customer failure. Record it as inconclusive until reproduced.
Scores compare a site to this rubric version, not to an absolute guarantee of AI visibility.

The interpretation is advisory. A high score does not guarantee visibility, citation, sentiment, traffic, or revenue. A low score does not prove that a site is absent from AI-generated answers.

Audit record

What this report was produced from. A reader who wants to reproduce or challenge a finding starts here.

Provenance for this run.
Field	Value
Audited domain	citeunseen.io
Audit identifier	aud_20260917T021429Z_cd4f4d1c
Audit date (UTC)	2026-09-17T02:15:41+00:00
Rubric version	0.6
Tool version	adia/0.1.0
Operator	Chris Brock LLC
Reviewer	Assisted review by Claude Code, 2026-09-17. Not countersigned.
Authorized by	Chris Brock (owner, 2026-09-08)
Pages sampled	44 of a 200 page limit, depth 3
Collection methods	bounded HTTP GET/HEAD over the standard library, robots.txt parsing, XML sitemap parsing, HTML parsing, JSON-LD parsing, operator review
Crawler user agent	ChrisBrockLLC-AIDiscoverabilityAudit/0.1 (+https://chrisbrock.io/crawler; operator-run audit; contact via site)
Excluded paths	None
Report retention	2027-09-08

Executive summary and fit classification

The three highest-value actions

Overall score, adjusted denominator, and confidence

Why the denominator is not 100

Weighted for Professional services

What to do

One prompt that fixes what this report found

1. CR-06 Body text is machine-readable prose

2. TE-03 Customer and outcome evidence

3. CI-02 Claim support

4. EN-03 People and authorship identity

5. TA-03 Comparative and decision content

6. MR-03 Recheck discipline

7. CI-01 Direct answer passages

9. TA-01 Priority-question coverage

10. TA-02 First-hand experience

11. EN-01 Organization identity consistency

12. TE-02 Expertise and credential support

13. CI-04 Source attribution

15. TE-01 Ownership and accountability

16. TA-04 Internal topic relationships

17. TE-04 Policy and limitation clarity

18. MR-01 Baseline question set

19. EN-02 Product and service identity

20. MR-02 Referral and conversion attribution

21. AC-02 Machine-readable guidance quality

What we could not settle

What is working

Highest-value actions

Page-structure checklist

Delivery context

Every check, and what it rested on

CR · Crawl and retrieval accessibility (15 points)

EN · Entity clarity (15 points)

CI · Citation readiness (20 points)

TA · Topical coverage and authority (15 points)

TE · Trust and evidence (15 points)

SD · Structured data (10 points)

AC · AI and agent controls (5 points)

MR · Measurement readiness (5 points)

Page-by-page collection results

Entity and source-consistency map

People and authorship

External properties linked from the site

Structured-data identifiers

Answer-ready content briefs

Structured-data backlog

Thirty-day implementation sequence

Days 1-7: retrieval, identity, and directives

Days 8-16: structure, evidence, and structured data

Days 17-30: coverage, comparison, and measurement

Measurement plan and limitations

Baseline question set

Next steps

What this measurement cannot tell you

Limitations of this audit

Agent tooling, observed and not scored

Where the standard stands

What we are not telling you

Machine-readable JSON appendix

Scoring methodology and rating scale

Scoring rules

Audit record