AI Readiness Assessment
https://www.facebook.com/
Governancestage 2 ยท not assessed yet...more
64 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 ยท 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.
How much of your content is reachable and readable, rather than blocked, buried or missing. Higher is better.
- No page is reachable by an AI system, so there is nothing on the site to be read, quoted or answered from. pages
Where your content could lead an AI system to state something incorrect. Only direct routes to a wrong answer count here.
- With the organisation's own pages unreadable, anything an AI states about Domain Admin is assembled from directories, news, forums and opinion, with no first-party page to check it against or to correct it.whole estate
AI systems were refused at the door. The site returned them no readable content.
This is an access finding, and it affects AI systems, not visitors. Because the pages cannot be reached by an AI, an answer about the organisation is assembled from third-party sources rather than from the organisation's own site.
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.
The proof behind this picture
22 live agents were first set up and readied for this assessment. 18 were sent to this door: 3 people and 15 AI systems, in the order shown on the chart; the other 4 stood ready as backup, to be called in depending on how the door answered. Of those sent, 18 made one timed call each, in their own name, asking for the same page. 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.
| Visitor | When | What happened | Answer | Took | Sent | Received | Answered from |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| People | |||||||
| iPhone user | 13:11:16.581 | ✓ served | 302 | 68 ms | 250 B | 753 B | 163.70.151.35 |
| Android user | 13:11:16.581 | ✓ served | 302 | 81 ms | 232 B | 753 B | 163.70.151.35 |
| Desktop browser | 13:11:15.469 | ✗ turned away | 400 | 302 ms | 232 B | 6.7 KB | 163.70.151.35 |
| AI systems | |||||||
| GPTBot · OpenAI | 13:11:15.772 | ✓ served | 200 | 332 ms | 217 B | 204.5 KB | 163.70.151.35 |
| OAI-SearchBot · OpenAI | 13:11:15.772 | ✓ served | 200 | 222 ms | 227 B | 204.3 KB | 163.70.151.35 |
| ChatGPT-User · OpenAI | 13:11:15.772 | ✓ served | 200 | 240 ms | 220 B | 204.3 KB | 163.70.151.35 |
| ClaudeBot · Anthropic | 13:11:15.772 | ✓ served | 200 | 266 ms | 225 B | 60.0 KB | 163.70.151.35 |
| Claude-User · Anthropic | 13:11:15.772 | ✓ served | 200 | 245 ms | 184 B | 204.5 KB | 163.70.151.35 |
| Googlebot (Gemini) | 13:11:15.772 | ✓ served | 200 | 264 ms | 256 B | 204.1 KB | 163.70.151.35 |
| GoogleOther | 13:11:15.995 | ✓ served | 200 | 239 ms | 190 B | 204.4 KB | 163.70.151.35 |
| Bingbot (Copilot) · Microsoft | 13:11:16.013 | ✓ served | 200 | 304 ms | 255 B | 204.0 KB | 163.70.151.35 |
| PerplexityBot | 13:11:16.018 | ✓ served | 200 | 245 ms | 200 B | 204.3 KB | 163.70.151.35 |
| Perplexity-User | 13:11:16.037 | ✓ served | 200 | 241 ms | 204 B | 204.4 KB | 163.70.151.35 |
| CCBot · Common Crawl | 13:11:16.105 | ✓ served | 200 | 219 ms | 155 B | 204.4 KB | 163.70.151.35 |
| Bytespider · ByteDance | 13:11:16.118 | ✓ served | 302 | 66 ms | 263 B | 753 B | 163.70.151.35 |
| Amazonbot | 13:11:16.185 | ✓ served | 200 | 223 ms | 203 B | 204.4 KB | 163.70.151.35 |
| GrokBot · xAI | 13:11:16.235 | ✓ served | 200 | 229 ms | 167 B | 204.3 KB | 163.70.151.35 |
| Meta-ExternalAgent | 13:11:16.264 | ✓ served | 200 | 315 ms | 204 B | 204.5 KB | 163.70.151.35 |
What this shows
2 of the 3 people were served. All 15 AI systems were served. The visitors fall into two groups, and each is judged on its own. 7 of the 7 services that answer people's questions were let in. 8 of the 8 services that gather material for future answers were let in. 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.
Whether the estate can be reached and read at all: access rules, links, redirects, sitemap, transport.
| Check | Result | Evidence | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fails · 1 | |||||||||||
| DS01 | fail | the site did not answer for its access-rules file, so nothing states what automated readers may read | |||||||||
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 the site did not answer for its access-rules file, so nothing states what automated readers may read 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.
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 robots.txt that can be fetched and read. 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 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 · 1 | |||||||||||
| DS23 | warning | sitemap.xml not found (status=None); discovery relies on links alone | |||||||||
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 sitemap.xml not found (status=None); discovery relies on links alone 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.
| |||||||||||
Passing checks are omitted here; the full record is in the exports.
No pages could be read on this estate, so none were scored. See the access finding above.
No documents could be reached on this estate.
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. 0 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 “Not established”: none. Listed company reads “Not established”: none.
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 189 checks, 17 ran automatically in this Foundations stage. 64 are questions for the person accountable for the content, asked at the next stage. 84 are 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.
Who’s talking about us
