AI Readiness Assessment
https://unceasing.dev
Assessed2026-09-20
Reference0920/UNC/11
IndustryGeneral organisation
Regulated · ListedNone found · Not established
Scale207 / 117
Foundations assessed now · the automated tests
Your Digital Doorway
PeopleAI systems
Credibility · E-E-A-T
65.8%
AI readiness · Pages
30.6%
AI readiness · PDFs
N/A
Misinformation · Pages
Very likely
Misinformation · PDFs
N/A
0%25%50%75%100%
Governancestage 2 · not assessed yet...more
43 judgements need a named person in the organisation to confirm, because they turn on what you know to be true rather than anything measurement can settle: whether a claim is supported, whether a page is still current, which of two versions is the one to quote. In order, they cover: who is answerable for this content; is it still true today; can each claim be backed; does our published content agree; will the right meaning come across; can someone reach it and act on it. An answer recorded against each, with a name and a date, is what turns published content into governed content.
Visibilitystage 3 · not assessed yet...more
Once the foundations are sound and the content is governed, the visibility stage measures how AI systems and agents actually find the estate: which pages they reach, how often, and how the organisation is represented when they answer questions about it, tracked over time. Building visibility on unconfirmed foundations only amplifies whatever is wrong, which is why it comes last.
Key findings · AI readiness
How much of your content is reachable and readable, rather than blocked, buried or missing. Higher is better.
AI readiness is low.The content can be reached, but the way the pages are built keeps much of it from being read cleanly.
What is holding it back
- Where a page carries exact facts, an address, opening hours, a price, a date, leaving them only in prose means they are worked out rather than read, and that is where a wrong branch or an old price comes from.1 page
- A visitor and an AI can be shown two different versions of the same page, so wording nobody sees can still be quoted back with your name on it, and a page that shows almost nothing until it is clicked gives a visitor an empty shell.1 page
- Many AI systems read a page exactly as it arrives and do not run the scripts that build the rest of it. Where the navigation is drawn by those scripts, such a reader lands on the front page and finds no way onward. It does not see a slow site or a broken one. It sees a site of one page, and the rest of the estate is not judged poorly, it is never reached at all, so nothing on it can be quoted or answered from.1 page
Key findings · Misinformation
Where your content could lead an AI system to state something incorrect. Only direct routes to a wrong answer count here.
Misinformation is very likely.The pages read as very likely to cause it.
What could cause it
- Many AI systems read a page exactly as it arrives and do not run the scripts that build the rest of it. Where the navigation is drawn by those scripts, such a reader lands on the front page and finds no way onward. It does not see a slow site or a broken one. It sees a site of one page, and the rest of the estate is not judged poorly, it is never reached at all, so nothing on it can be quoted or answered from.pages
- Without a list of its own pages, the site can only be explored by following links, so any page that is poorly linked is never found and plays no part in what AI systems know about the organisation.pages
- AI systems can end up quoting the wrong copy of a page, repeating information the organisation has already corrected or replaced. This happens when a page does not say which of its addresses is the official one, so each AI picks for itself.pages
▸What makes up these figures door, site, pages and documents · click to view
The front doorOpen to the services that answer people's questions.
The site as a whole55.0%The parts shared across the estate are working for you.
Your pages30.6%What your pages say comes back usable, evenly across them.
▸Digital doorway measured at the front door · click to view
Anyone asking for this site, a person on a phone or an AI system building an answer, is let in, turned away, or left with no answer, in milliseconds, by machinery most organisations never see. An AI system that gets nothing here reads nothing at all: to that system the organisation simply does not answer.
People
4 out of 4 served
AI systems
22 out of 22 served
The proof behind this picture
29 live agents were first set up and readied for this assessment. 26 were sent to this door: 4 people and 22 AI systems, in the order shown on the chart; the other 3 stood ready as backup, to be called in depending on how the door answered. Of those sent, 24 made one timed call each, in their own name, asking for the same page. The 2 desktop browsers made a full visit, exactly as a person at a computer would. Nothing here is simulated: these are real calls to the live site, recorded as they happened, and each line below carries the moment it happened. Alongside them, two further readings were taken at the door: the site's security certificate, and its published rules for crawlers.
Called from212.132.241.37
The door, atunceasing.dev · 178.62.64.40
Started2026-09-20 22:31:43 UTC
Finished2026-09-20 22:31:46 UTC
| Visitor | When | What happened | Answer | Took | Sent | Received | Answered from |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| People | |||||||
| iPhone user | 22:31:43.989 | ✓ served | 200 | 32 ms | 247 B | 1.3 KB | 178.62.64.40 |
| Android user | 22:31:43.989 | ✓ served | 200 | 31 ms | 229 B | 1.3 KB | 178.62.64.40 |
| Safari on a Mac | 22:31:44.427 | ✓ served | 200 | 146 ms | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Chrome on a PC | 22:31:45.966 | ✓ served | 200 | 184 ms | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| AI systems | |||||||
| GPTBot · OpenAI | 22:31:43.814 | ✓ served | 200 | 46 ms | 214 B | 1.3 KB | 178.62.64.40 |
| OAI-SearchBot · OpenAI | 22:31:43.814 | ✓ served | 200 | 47 ms | 291 B | 1.3 KB | 178.62.64.40 |
| ChatGPT-User · OpenAI | 22:31:43.814 | ✓ served | 200 | 54 ms | 217 B | 1.3 KB | 178.62.64.40 |
| ClaudeBot · Anthropic | 22:31:43.814 | ✓ served | 200 | 56 ms | 177 B | 1.3 KB | 178.62.64.40 |
| Claude-SearchBot · Anthropic | 22:31:43.815 | ✓ served | 200 | 59 ms | 229 B | 1.3 KB | 178.62.64.40 |
| Claude-User · Anthropic | 22:31:43.815 | ✓ served | 200 | 57 ms | 219 B | 1.3 KB | 178.62.64.40 |
| Googlebot (Gemini) | 22:31:43.861 | ✓ served | 200 | 45 ms | 253 B | 1.3 KB | 178.62.64.40 |
| GoogleOther | 22:31:43.863 | ✓ served | 200 | 47 ms | 218 B | 1.3 KB | 178.62.64.40 |
| Bingbot (Copilot) · Microsoft | 22:31:43.870 | ✓ served | 200 | 39 ms | 252 B | 1.3 KB | 178.62.64.40 |
| PerplexityBot | 22:31:43.871 | ✓ served | 200 | 47 ms | 231 B | 1.3 KB | 178.62.64.40 |
| Perplexity-User | 22:31:43.873 | ✓ served | 200 | 39 ms | 235 B | 1.3 KB | 178.62.64.40 |
| CCBot · Common Crawl | 22:31:43.875 | ✓ served | 200 | 44 ms | 152 B | 1.3 KB | 178.62.64.40 |
| Bytespider · ByteDance | 22:31:43.906 | ✓ served | 200 | 36 ms | 260 B | 1.3 KB | 178.62.64.40 |
| Amazonbot | 22:31:43.909 | ✓ served | 200 | 31 ms | 220 B | 1.3 KB | 178.62.64.40 |
| GrokBot · xAI | 22:31:43.911 | ✓ served | 200 | 34 ms | 164 B | 1.3 KB | 178.62.64.40 |
| Meta-ExternalAgent | 22:31:43.913 | ✓ served | 200 | 33 ms | 201 B | 1.3 KB | 178.62.64.40 |
| Meta-WebIndexer | 22:31:43.919 | ✓ served | 200 | 45 ms | 203 B | 1.3 KB | 178.62.64.40 |
| Meta-ExternalFetcher | 22:31:43.920 | ✓ served | 200 | 33 ms | 203 B | 1.3 KB | 178.62.64.40 |
| Applebot | 22:31:43.941 | ✓ served | 200 | 38 ms | 279 B | 1.3 KB | 178.62.64.40 |
| MistralAI-Training | 22:31:43.943 | ✓ served | 200 | 42 ms | 231 B | 1.3 KB | 178.62.64.40 |
| MistralAI-Index | 22:31:43.945 | ✓ served | 200 | 42 ms | 228 B | 1.3 KB | 178.62.64.40 |
| MistralAI-User | 22:31:43.946 | ✓ served | 200 | 39 ms | 227 B | 1.3 KB | 178.62.64.40 |
The desktop browsers are run in full rather than as a single call, so one figure for the information moved does not apply to them; their outcome and timing are shown.
What this shows
All 4 people were served. All 22 AI systems were served. The visitors fall into two groups, and each is judged on its own. 13 of the 13 services that answer people's questions were let in. 9 of the 9 services that gather material for future answers were let in. Where a service arrived carrying a question, the question used was the organisation's own name, “What do you do?”, because that is what the public asks. A door of this kind decides call by call. This record is what happened at this door, at this time, from this address; it can answer differently at another time, which is why the time and the address are part of the record.
How this stands up
These calls can be repeated on request while you watch. A separate checking tool, kept apart from the assessment engine so the two cannot share a mistake, knocks on the same door several times over and records whether the answers hold still; each of its checks is saved with the date, the time and the calling address.
▸E-E-A-T credibility in Google’s four terms · 65.8% · click to view
Four questions a reader asks before believing what a site says: can it be relied on, is the organisation recognised, is it clear who wrote it, and does it show first-hand knowledge. Each is measured from the checks that carry it, and the four combine into one score.
| Pillar | What it measures | Score | Weight | |||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trust | Can what this site says be relied on? | 81.9% | 35% | |||||||||||||||||
How this pillar was measured
12 checks carry this pillar. They produced 12 results across the pages and documents assessed: 8 passed, 3 were flagged, 1 failed. The score is the weighted share that passed, with a flagged result counting as half.
What is holding this pillar down
failWhether the site publishes and serves its terms, its privacy notice and a route to make contact or complain.across the siteWhat good looks like Terms, a privacy notice and a contact route are published, and each opens when asked for. Why it matters These are the pages looked for before anything on a site is repeated. Where one is absent or does not open, there is nothing to confirm who stands behind the content. Where it was found, and what was found there
warningWhether the site publishes a statement on how accessible it is, and whether it can be reached from the front page.on one itemWhat good looks like A statement exists, is linked, and gives a route for reporting a barrier. Why it matters The statement is the organisation saying in public what standard it holds itself to, what it knows is not yet right, and how to tell it. Its absence is read as the subject not having been considered at all. Where the site trades in the United Kingdom or the European Union it also carries legal weight. Where it was found, and what was found there
warningThe page carries a date, ideally written into the markup rather than sitting only in the text.on one itemWhat good looks like The page carries a date, ideally written into the markup rather than sitting only in the text. Why it matters An undated page gives nothing to weigh its age against, so old and new material are treated alike. Where it was found, and what was found there
warningThe copyright line at the foot of the page, and the year it states.on one itemWhat good looks like The copyright line states the current year. Why it matters An old copyright year reads as a site nobody is looking after, and it dates the page for anything that relies on dates. Content can be treated as years older than it really is. Where it was found, and what was found there
What passed
8 of the 12 checks in this pillar passed on each item assessed
| ||||||||||||||||||||
| Authoritativeness | Is this plainly the organisation it says it is? | 30.0% | 30% | |||||||||||||||||
How this pillar was measured
3 checks carry this pillar. They produced 3 results across the pages and documents assessed: 1 passed, 1 were flagged, 1 failed. The score is the weighted share that passed, with a flagged result counting as half.
What is holding this pillar down
failWhether the page states what it is, and the exact facts it carries, in a form a machine can take as given rather than work out from the wording.on one itemWhat good looks like The page states what it is in machine-readable form, and where it carries exact facts it states those too. A page of exact facts stating none of them is a fail; a narrative page without a block is a warning. Why it matters Where a page carries exact facts, an address, opening hours, a price, a date, leaving them only in prose means they are worked out rather than read, and that is where a wrong branch or an old price comes from. Where it was found, and what was found there
warningThe short title, description and image the page offers to services that show a preview of it, and whether they match the page.on one itemWhat good looks like The page offers a summary for preview, and the summary is true to the page. Why it matters This summary travels further than the page does. It is what appears when the address is shared, and several services read it in preference to the page itself because it is short and already written for the purpose. Where it is absent, those services compose their own from whatever they find first, which is often navigation. Where it is present but out of step, the organisation is described to a wide audience by a sentence it wrote once and forgot. Where it was found, and what was found there
What passed
1 of the 3 checks in this pillar passed on each item assessed
| ||||||||||||||||||||
| Expertise | Is it clear who stands behind the words? | nothing to measure | 20% | |||||||||||||||||
How this pillar was measured
Nothing of this kind was published on the pages assessed, so this pillar has nothing behind it here. Its weight is shared among the other three rather than counted as a score of nothing.
| ||||||||||||||||||||
| Experience | Does the content show first-hand knowledge? | 99.9% | 15% | |||||||||||||||||
How this pillar was measured
1 checks carry this pillar. They produced 1 results across the pages and documents assessed: 1 passed. The score is the weighted share that passed, with a flagged result counting as half.
What is holding this pillar down Nothing. Each check carrying this pillar passed on each item assessed. What passed
1 of the 1 checks in this pillar passed on each item assessed
| ||||||||||||||||||||
Whether the estate can be reached and read at all: access rules, links, redirects, sitemap, transport.
| Check | Result | Evidence | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fails · 2 | |||||||||||
| DS23 | fail | the site publishes no list of its own pages, so an AI can only find what it reaches by following links, and anything poorly linked is never found | |||||||||
What we check The site publishes a sitemap at the standard address and it returns successfully. What good looks like The site publishes a list of its own pages at the usual address. Its absence is a fail: discovery then rests on links alone. Why it matters Without a list of its own pages, the site can only be explored by following links, so any page that is poorly linked is never found and plays no part in what AI systems know about the organisation. What we found on this page the site publishes no list of its own pages, so an AI can only find what it reaches by following links, and anything poorly linked is never found The evidence, taken from the page as served The sitemap, as the site answered for it
The address sitemap.xml was asked for. It is the file a site uses to list its own pages.
Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: the site publishes a list of its own pages at the usual address. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||
| AJ04 | fail | none of the three pages a reader checks before trusting a site could be found among the addresses this site publishes: its terms, a privacy notice and a route to make contact. There is nothing to confirm who stands behind the content | |||||||||
What we check Whether the site publishes and serves its terms, its privacy notice and a route to make contact or complain. What good looks like Terms, a privacy notice and a contact route are published, and each opens when asked for. Why it matters These are the pages looked for before anything on a site is repeated. Where one is absent or does not open, there is nothing to confirm who stands behind the content. What we found on this page none of the three pages a reader checks before trusting a site could be found among the addresses this site publishes: its terms, a privacy notice and a route to make contact. There is nothing to confirm who stands behind the content The evidence, taken from the page as served The pages a reader checks before trusting a site
The addresses the site publishes were read for each of the three, and each one found was opened.
Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: terms, a privacy notice and a contact route are published, and each opens when asked for. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it does not move the misinformation reading This failure makes content harder to reach or to read, but it is not a direct route to a wrong answer, so it is held out of the misinformation reading rather than counted twice. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||
| Warnings · 1 | |||||||||||
| DS01 | warning | robots.txt returns 404; no directives served; crawlers assume allow-all | |||||||||
What we check The site publishes a robots.txt file and it can be fetched and read. What good looks like The site publishes a robots.txt that can be fetched and read. Why it matters The organisation has published no working rules about what AI systems may take from its site, so each system decides for itself. The standard file that carries those rules is missing or unreadable. What we found on this page robots.txt returns 404; no directives served; crawlers assume allow-all The evidence, taken from the page as served The access-rules file, as the site answered for it
The address robots.txt was asked for. It is the file a site uses to tell automated readers what they may read.
| |||||||||||
Passing checks are omitted here; the full record is in the exports.
▸Pages considered 1 pages · click to view
The highest-priority pages, chosen from the site's own signals of importance.
▸https://unceasing.dev/ 30.6% Very likely 14 out of 82
The page https://unceasing.dev/
| Check | Result | Evidence | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fails · 5 | |||||||||||||||
| DS17 | fail | the page states no preferred address for itself, so duplicate copies compete to be the one cited | |||||||||||||
What we check Each page names one preferred address for itself, its canonical link. What good looks like Each page names one preferred address for itself. Why it matters AI systems can end up quoting the wrong copy of a page, repeating information the organisation has already corrected or replaced. This happens when a page does not say which of its addresses is the official one, so each AI picks for itself. What we found on this page the page states no preferred address for itself, so duplicate copies compete to be the one cited The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The head of the page was read for a tag naming the page's preferred address. <head> <meta charset="utf-8"/> <title>Unceasing Digital</title> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="style.css"/> </head> Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: each page names one preferred address for itself. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||||||
| CT16 | fail | this page carries an address, and states none of it in a form a machine can take as given, so those facts have to be worked out from the wording around them | |||||||||||||
What we check Whether the page states what it is, and the exact facts it carries, in a form a machine can take as given rather than work out from the wording. What good looks like The page states what it is in machine-readable form, and where it carries exact facts it states those too. A page of exact facts stating none of them is a fail; a narrative page without a block is a warning. Why it matters Where a page carries exact facts, an address, opening hours, a price, a date, leaving them only in prose means they are worked out rather than read, and that is where a wrong branch or an old price comes from. What we found on this page this page carries an address, and states none of it in a form a machine can take as given, so those facts have to be worked out from the wording around them The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The page was read for a short block of machine-readable detail saying what it is. The page's own words carry an address, which is why this weighs as it does. <head> <meta charset="utf-8"/> <title>Unceasing Digital</title> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="style.css"/> </head> Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: the page states what it is in machine-readable form, and where it carries exact facts it states those too. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||||||
| CT14 | fail | the page does not mark out its navigation, so the menu links run into the page's own words when it is read | |||||||||||||
What we check Navigation is marked as navigation, so its links separate cleanly from the body text. What good looks like Navigation is marked as navigation, so its links separate cleanly from the body text. Why it matters Menu links here read as ordinary sentences to an AI system, so quotes from the page come back padded with strings of navigation words. What we found on this page the page does not mark out its navigation, so the menu links run into the page's own words when it is read The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its navigation. <header> <main> <footer> Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: navigation is marked as navigation, so its links separate cleanly from the body text. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 1 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the supporting checks, so it carries the lightest weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||||||
| DS32 | fail | the page offers no way onward into the site, before or after its scripts run, so a reader arriving here reaches this page and no other | |||||||||||||
What we check The links that carry a reader from this page into the rest of the site, and whether they are in the page as it arrives or appear only once scripts have run. What good looks like The page carries its ways onward as it arrives, so a reader that does not run scripts can still move through the site. Why it matters Many AI systems read a page exactly as it arrives and do not run the scripts that build the rest of it. Where the navigation is drawn by those scripts, such a reader lands on the front page and finds no way onward. It does not see a slow site or a broken one. It sees a site of one page, and the rest of the estate is not judged poorly, it is never reached at all, so nothing on it can be quoted or answered from. What we found on this page the page offers no way onward into the site, before or after its scripts run, so a reader arriving here reaches this page and no other The evidence, taken from the page as served The ways onward this page offers, as it arrives and once it has finished loading
Both were taken from the same visit.
Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: the page carries its ways onward as it arrives, so a reader that does not run scripts can still move through the site. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 5 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide whether content can be reached and read at all, so it carries the heaviest weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure is a real and common route to a wrong answer for the content it affects, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||||||
| AR12 | fail | before anything is clicked this page shows only 329 characters of its 347, so a visitor is given almost nothing while the rest sits behind panels; what an AI reads and what a person sees are two different pages | |||||||||||||
What we check How much of the page a visitor is shown before opening anything, against how much the page holds in total. What good looks like A visitor is shown a sound amount of the page straight away. More than half the words behind panels is a warning; showing less than 400 characters before anything is clicked is a fail. Why it matters A visitor and an AI can be shown two different versions of the same page, so wording nobody sees can still be quoted back with your name on it, and a page that shows almost nothing until it is clicked gives a visitor an empty shell. What we found on this page before anything is clicked this page shows only 329 characters of its 347, so a visitor is given almost nothing while the rest sits behind panels; what an AI reads and what a person sees are two different pages The evidence, taken from the page as served What this page shows before anything is clicked
Both figures were taken on the page as it arrives, once it had finished building itself and before anything was clicked.
Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: a visitor is shown a sound amount of the page straight away. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||||||
| Warnings · 9 | |||||||||||||||
| CT31 | warning | the page carries no description of itself in its head | |||||||||||||
What we check The page provides a meta description, the short summary offered alongside its title. What good looks like The page provides a meta description. Why it matters The page provides no summary of itself, so the short description shown beside its name is written by whoever lists it. The organisation gives up its own say in how the page is introduced. What we found on this page the page carries no description of itself in its head The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The head of the page was read for a description tag. <head> <meta charset="utf-8"/> <title>Unceasing Digital</title> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="style.css"/> </head> | |||||||||||||||
| CT40 | warning | the page offers no short summary for the services that show a preview of it, so each one composes its own from whatever it finds first on the page | |||||||||||||
What we check The short title, description and image the page offers to services that show a preview of it, and whether they match the page. What good looks like The page offers a summary for preview, and the summary is true to the page. Why it matters This summary travels further than the page does. It is what appears when the address is shared, and several services read it in preference to the page itself because it is short and already written for the purpose. Where it is absent, those services compose their own from whatever they find first, which is often navigation. Where it is present but out of step, the organisation is described to a wide audience by a sentence it wrote once and forgot. What we found on this page the page offers no short summary for the services that show a preview of it, so each one composes its own from whatever it finds first on the page The evidence, taken from the page as served The summary this page offers for preview
Read from the page as served.
| |||||||||||||||
| IN23 | warning | the front page offers no route to a statement on how accessible the site is, so there is nothing published saying what standard the organisation holds itself to, what it knows is not yet right, or how to report a barrier | |||||||||||||
What we check Whether the site publishes a statement on how accessible it is, and whether it can be reached from the front page. What good looks like A statement exists, is linked, and gives a route for reporting a barrier. Why it matters The statement is the organisation saying in public what standard it holds itself to, what it knows is not yet right, and how to tell it. Its absence is read as the subject not having been considered at all. Where the site trades in the United Kingdom or the European Union it also carries legal weight. What we found on this page the front page offers no route to a statement on how accessible the site is, so there is nothing published saying what standard the organisation holds itself to, what it knows is not yet right, or how to report a barrier The evidence, taken from the page as served The routes this page offers to a statement on accessibility
The links on the front page were read for one leading to such a statement.
| |||||||||||||||
| CT04 | warning | the page carries no date, so there is nothing on it saying how current its content is | |||||||||||||
What we check The page carries a date, ideally written into the markup rather than sitting only in the text. What good looks like The page carries a date, ideally written into the markup rather than sitting only in the text. Why it matters An undated page gives nothing to weigh its age against, so old and new material are treated alike. What we found on this page the page carries no date, so there is nothing on it saying how current its content is The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The head of the page and the page's own text were read for a date. <head> <meta charset="utf-8"/> <title>Unceasing Digital</title> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="style.css"/> </head> | |||||||||||||||
| AR13 | warning | only 72 characters of this page read as its own content, so either the page is thin or its own words cannot be told apart from the parts repeated across the site | |||||||||||||
What we check Whether the page's main content is marked off from the navigation and footer around it. What good looks like A main or article region marks the primary content off from the navigation and footer around it. Why it matters Pulling the page's text returns menus and legal footers mixed with the substance, so the answer arrives buried in noise. What we found on this page only 72 characters of this page read as its own content, so either the page is thin or its own words cannot be told apart from the parts repeated across the site The evidence, taken from the page as served The main text extracted from the page, as served
Unceasing Digital provides software development and IT support services. | |||||||||||||||
| CT35 | warning | the page carries no copyright line in the content as served, so there is nothing on it to date it by, and an absent copyright line is one of the marks of a copied template | |||||||||||||
What we check The copyright line at the foot of the page, and the year it states. What good looks like The copyright line states the current year. Why it matters An old copyright year reads as a site nobody is looking after, and it dates the page for anything that relies on dates. Content can be treated as years older than it really is. What we found on this page the page carries no copyright line in the content as served, so there is nothing on it to date it by, and an absent copyright line is one of the marks of a copied template The evidence, taken from the page as served The foot of this page, as served
The foot of the page was read for a copyright line. <footer> Unceasing Digital Ltd, company number 11883080 registered in England and Wales at 66 Paul Street, London EC2A 4NA<br/> Unceasing Digital (EU) OÜ, registry number 16059662 registered in Estonia at Sakala tn 7-2, Kesklinna linnaosa, Harju maakond, EE10141 Tallinn </footer> | |||||||||||||||
| CT24 | warning | the page's own content runs to 72 characters | |||||||||||||
What we check The page holds enough main text to be substantive, measured against a 400 character floor. What good looks like The page holds enough main text to be substantive. Why it matters A page of a few sentences offers almost nothing to quote, so it adds little beyond its own existence. What we found on this page the page's own content runs to 72 characters The evidence, taken from the page as served How much of this page is its own content
Counted from the page as served, before any script runs. The page's own content is the part it marks out as its main content; where it marks out none, the whole of its text is counted.
| |||||||||||||||
| CT13 | warning | main content is 20% of the page's text; the shared furniture around it dominates what is read out | |||||||||||||
What we check How much of the page's text sits in the main content region rather than in surrounding furniture. What good looks like Most of the page's text sits in its main content region rather than in the surrounding furniture. Why it matters Most of what this page serves is menus and repeated furniture rather than its own words, so what a system takes away is mostly padding, with the real message diluted or lost. What we found on this page main content is 20% of the page's text; the shared furniture around it dominates what is read out The evidence, taken from the page as served How much of this page is its own content
Counted from the page as served, before any script runs. The rest is the menus, header and foot-of-page text that appear on other pages of the site as well.
| |||||||||||||||
| AJ05 | warning | no site-search control detected on this page | |||||||||||||
What we check Whether a search box for the site is present in the page as it is served. What good looks like A search box is present in the served markup, so the site's own content can be queried directly. Why it matters With no search box on the page, its links are the only route from here into the rest of the site. What we found on this page no site-search control detected on this page The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The page was read for a search box: a search form, a control named for search, or a box labelled as one. <head> <meta charset="utf-8"/> <title>Unceasing Digital</title> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="style.css"/> </head> | |||||||||||||||
▸PDF documents 0 documents · click to view
No PDF documents were part of this assessment.
▸How the scores work method and bands · click to view
This report is Stage 1, Foundations: each automated test the engine can run without human input, so there is a usable result at the first stage. Governance (owner-confirmed truth) and Visibility (how AI agents find the estate) are later stages and are shown greyed above.
What was assessed. 1 pages were assessed, selected from 1 reviewed using the site's own signals of importance (its navigation, homepage links, most-linked pages, sitemap, and any llms.txt file), and the first 0 PDF documents found were assessed separately. The industry in the header is classified from the site's own content. The traffic classification comes from a recognised top-sites list or a connected traffic provider; it reads NA when the domain is not connected to a traffic source.
Header identity signals. The regulated sector and listed company values are inferred from the same crawled content, and shown here so the header can stay to the answer alone. Regulated sector reads “None found”: no regulator statements, and the established sector carries no statutory regulator. Listed company reads “Not established”: no clear public-listing indicators in the sampled pages.
AI readiness is the weighted share of checks that passed, reported separately for pages and for PDF documents because each is reached and corrected differently. Grade A checks decide whether content can be reached and read at all; grade B whether it is understood correctly; grade C support reliability. A measured score is scaled into a ceiling when an access gate binds it (for example the site blocking AI crawlers at its edge): content that cannot be reached is not partially ready. Scores never read exactly 25, 50, 75 or 100, because those are buckets, not measurements.
Likelihood of misinformation is a band, given as a worst case (the highest any single item or estate-wide finding reaches) and a typical position across the pages or documents. Only checks whose failure is a direct route to a wrong answer carry a band; the rest affect readiness only.
| Band | Range | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Likely zero | 0-5% | No failing misinformation-bearing checks. |
| Very little | 6-25% | Unlikely to cause wrong information. |
| Likely | 26-50% | Could contribute to wrong information in some cases. |
| Very likely | 51-75% | A real and common route to wrong information. |
| Extremely likely | 76-100% | A frequent and direct cause of wrong information. |
Of the register's 207 checks, 117 ran automatically in this Foundations stage. 43 are questions for the person accountable for the content, asked at the next stage. 38 are built and found nothing of their kind published on this site, so they had nothing to read. One is defined in the register and not yet built. 7 need information supplied by the organisation. Each check that did not run is listed in the exports, with its reason.
About us
Built on evidence, not assumptions.
We have been doing this for 25 years. For the last two years, we have been training AI to understand and map AI Readiness (fundamentals, governance, visibility), against our unique dataset of more than 3.7 trillion data points.
3.7
Trillion
Data points, with each result kept since the beginning: probably the largest experience and compliance dataset of its kind. Our AI is trained on factual, controlled, real-world evidence.
$106
Billion
Estimated manual effort avoided through automation. An estimate, and a conservative one: since ARTY was introduced, we have removed 95% of costs and delivered efficiency gains beyond 70x.
119
Million
Websites analysed and mapped for content fundamentals, from the outside in. AI Readiness begins by removing the human issues that undermine Value and create unnecessary Risk.
25
Years
When we started, we were labelled 'the pioneers' of website automation and checking. In 2023, we launched our first AI analysis tools.
Who’s talking about us
