FICTITIOUS SAMPLE REPORT — Made-up data. No real website, merchant or customer was assessed.

Willow & Thread is an invented apparel store on the reserved .example domain. All findings, scores, prices, capture times and references are fictional. No live scan or transaction took place.

View all free and detailed samples
ARC SCAN · DETAILED REPORT

Agent Readiness and Compatibility — Scan Report

An evidence-based assessment of how AI systems and autonomous agents discover, understand, trust and act on this website.

ASSESSED PROPERTY
willow-thread.example
FICTITIOUS ASSESSMENT EXAMPLE MANUAL VERIFICATION PENDING
REPORT ID
SAMPLE-ARC-REPORT-FICTITIOUS
REPORT VERSION
v1
GENERATED
19 October 2026
CURRENT THROUGH
02 November 2026
COVERAGE
Representative — 1/1 sampled pages
SCANNER
v2.1.0
TEST REGISTRY
v2.2.0
SCORING / SCHEMA
v2.2.0 / 1.0
01

Assessment status

AUTOMATED ASSESSMENT
Complete
45 automated ARC checks were executed against the sampled pages on 19 October 2026. Every result in this report comes from that executed evidence.
MANUAL VERIFICATION
Pending
4 advanced checks require operator verification and remain not verified. No result has been recorded for them; none is scored or implied as a pass.
Automated assessment complete. Certain advanced checks require operator verification and remain pending. Where this report is silent on those behaviours, it is because they have not yet been observed — not because they passed.

CONTENTS
Executive summary
ARC score & category overview
Business surface & agent access assurance
Result & priority distribution
Findings & evidence
Category assessments
Manual verification status
Prioritised remediation roadmap
Commercial & scope summary
What ARC tested — coverage
Appendix A — test manifest
Appendix B — page evidence
Methodology, versions & limitations
Next steps

HOW TO READ RESULT STATES
PASS The check ran and the expected signal was present.
NEEDS ATTENTION The check ran and returned a partial or informational result.
FAIL The check ran and the expected signal was absent or blocked.
NOT VERIFIED No reliable way to verify existed; never counted as a pass or a fail.
NOT APPLICABLE The check does not apply to this site; excluded from scoring.
PENDING Operator verification required; not yet performed.
02

Executive summary

OVERALL ARC SCORE
66/100
Maturity band B — Developing. Scored across 7 ARC categories by scoring engine v2.2.0.

This fictional snapshot illustrates public-content gaps and unverified agent controls. Review the individual findings and their scope.

AUTOMATED
Complete · 45 checks
MANUAL VERIFICATION
Pending · 4 checks
STRONGEST AREAS
Discovery & Crawl Access · Conversion & Agentic Commerce
HIGHEST-PRIORITY BLOCKERS
HIGH Form or reachable contact path exists Forms: 0; /contact: None form_or_contact_path_exists
HIGH Key buyer questions are answerable from retrieved content Extractable support found for 2/9 buyer-question categories: contact, cost. This measures whether information is present, clear and extractable from retrieved content -- it is not a live test of whether an AI answer engine actually answers correctly; that is assessed separately during managed paid fulfilment. business_answerability_extractive_coverage
HIGH Primary content does not require JavaScript execution Static HTML has 52 visible words -- present but modest; no strong JS-dependency signal detected. content_available_without_js
REMEDIATION OPPORTUNITIES
8
All items require a scope review before duration or price can be confirmed. Indicative delivery timeline subject to scope confirmation
INDICATIVE REMEDIATION VALUE
Custom Scope Review Required
No monetary value is stated because no item in this assessment can be priced without a scope review. Pricing to be confirmed following scope review.
ASSESSMENT COVERAGE
29
SCORED CHECKS
6
NOT APPLICABLE
10
NOT VERIFIED
4
PENDING MANUAL

ARC's methodology defines 50 checks. This report ran 45 automated checks; 29 produced a scored result, 6 were not applicable and 10 could not be verified. 4 operator-verified checks remain pending. Not applicable and not verified checks carry no points and are not failures.

Categories without a numeric score and why: AI Visibility & Recommendation (PENDING MANUAL) — it depends on operator verification that is still pending; Identity, Authentication & Agent Access (NOT VERIFIED) — the checks that ran could not be verified.

03

ARC score & category overview

Each category is scored only from checks that actually ran and could be scored. Where nothing was scored, a state is shown instead of a number — a category with no evaluated tests is not a zero-score failure.

CATEGORY
SCORE
EVIDENCE
STATE
Discovery & Crawl Access
93
9 / 10 passed
SCORED
Machine Readability & Content Structure
78
6 / 10 passed
SCORED
Business Understanding & Answerability
57
3 / 6 passed
SCORED
AI Visibility & Recommendation
—
1 manual only
PENDING MANUAL
Agent Interfaces & Actionability
0
0 / 1 passed
SCORED
Identity, Authentication & Agent Access
—
0 / 0 passed
NOT VERIFIED
Conversion & Agentic Commerce
100
2 / 2 passed
SCORED
ARC PILLARS
ARC reports REACH (can AI systems find and understand you) and CAPABILITY (can an agent act with you) as separate axes; they are never blended beyond the overall score.
SCORE COMPOSITION
All categories are weighted equally. Categories without scored evidence are excluded from the overall score. Mean of the 5 evaluated categories: 66.
03a

Business surface & agent access assurance

Whether a control applies depends on what this business actually presents to AI systems and what it intends — not on whether the control happens to exist. Protocol support is shown as evidence, never as credit: a business can be correctly agent-ready while intentionally keeping an agent away from a consequential action.

BUSINESS SURFACE · ESTABLISHED
ARC established the following surface(s): commerce (cart and checkout), lead generation, product and service discovery (indicated). The most consequential action an agent could attempt is: consequential.
SURFACECERTAINTYEVIDENCE
Commerce (cart and checkout) ESTABLISHED cart/checkout path: /cart; purchase control: "Add to cart"
Lead generation ESTABLISHED contact/enquiry/quote path: /contact
Product and service discovery INDICATED catalogue/listing path: /products/linen-shirt
1. WHAT ARC BELIEVES THIS BUSINESS SURFACE ALLOWS

ARC established the following surface(s): commerce (cart and checkout), lead generation, product and service discovery (indicated). The most consequential action an agent could attempt is: consequential.

2. WHAT WAS ACTUALLY OBSERVED

Observed independently of any agent protocol; protocol presence is listed as context, not credit.

3. WHAT AN AI SYSTEM COULD DISCOVER

9 of 10 scored checks passed.

4. WHAT AN AI SYSTEM COULD UNDERSTAND

9 of 16 scored checks passed.

5. WHAT AN AI SYSTEM COULD ATTEMPT TO USE

2 of 3 scored checks passed.

6. WHAT CONTROLS OR BOUNDARIES WERE OBSERVED

Controls and boundaries below were observed or declared; an absent entry is simply not evidenced, not a failure.

7. WHETHER BEHAVIOUR APPEARS CONSISTENT WITH INTENDED POLICY

Behaviour against policy is only judged from an independently observed attempt.

8. WHAT REMAINS UNVERIFIED

Not verified means ARC could not establish an answer. It is neither a pass nor a failure and carries no points.

9. WHY EACH MATERIAL FINDING MATTERS TO THE BUSINESS

Consequences are qualitative and only attached to findings that failed or need attention. ARC does not estimate revenue or financial impact.

AGENT ACCESS & CONTROL EVIDENCE

Protocol-neutral states. Each row says what was evidenced, through which channel, and whether it was observed by ARC or declared by the business. A declared stance is evidence of intent, not of behaviour.

STATERESULTCHANNELWHAT ARC FOUND
Automation observed
observed
EVIDENCED http probe ARC's declared-identity request (HoshiroLabsAgentReadyBot) was served normally.
Agent identity declared
observed
NOT EVIDENCED robots txt robots.txt does not address any named AI agent; the site's published policy does not distinguish declared agent identities.
Agent identity verifiable NOT VERIFIED none ARC does not present verifiable agent credentials, so whether the site verifies agent identity cannot be tested from a scan.
Underlying principal identifiable NOT VERIFIED none Nothing observed or declared shows who an agent acts for on this site.
Authentication mechanism observed
observed
NOT EVIDENCED http probe No authentication mechanism was observed on the interfaces ARC could see.
Read access allowed
observed
EVIDENCED http probe Public content was served to a declared automated client and no blanket robots.txt disallow applies.
Write / action access allowed
observed
NOT VERIFIED structured data Action paths exist (commerce (cart and checkout), lead generation), but whether an agent is permitted to use them was neither declared nor tested.
Consequential action allowed NOT VERIFIED none A consequential surface was established, but whether agents may complete consequential actions was neither declared nor tested.
User confirmation required NOT VERIFIED none Not declared and not observed for the consequential surface that was established.
Delegated authority evidenced
observed
NOT EVIDENCED oauth metadata No machine-readable description of how an agent obtains delegated authority was found. An authenticated or consequential surface was established (commerce (cart and checkout)), but the business has not declared whether agents are meant to act on it.
Authority scope / limits evidenced NOT EVIDENCED none Nothing machine-readable states what an agent may do or where its authority ends.
Business policy evidenced
observed
EVIDENCED published policy page Human-readable policy pages are linked (Returns). They are not an agent-specific policy.
Observed behaviour consistent with policy NOT VERIFIED none No independently observed agent attempt exists. ARC does not attempt consequential actions during a scan; behaviour against policy is verified separately.
Authority or policy unverifiable EVIDENCED none Authority or policy cannot be fully verified: delegated authority evidenced; authority scope / limits evidenced; observed behaviour consistent with policy remain unresolved.
WHY SOME TESTS DID NOT APPLY OR COULD NOT BE VERIFIED
TESTOUTCOMEREASON, IN TERMS OF THE BUSINESS
openapi_documentation_valid NOT APPLICABLE No API surface is indicated by independent evidence.
api_catalog_available NOT APPLICABLE No API surface is indicated by independent evidence.
public_transaction_interface_documented NOT VERIFIED A transaction surface exists, but the business has not declared whether agent-executed transactions are intended.
oauth_authorization_server_metadata NOT VERIFIED The well-known location could not be reached; that is not evidence of absence.
oauth_protected_resource_metadata NOT VERIFIED The well-known location could not be reached; that is not evidence of absence.
agent_authority_boundaries_evidenced NOT VERIFIED An action surface exists, but the business has not declared whether agents are meant to act on it.
emerging_commerce_protocol_signals NOT APPLICABLE Informational signal: it is evidence of a channel, not of readiness, so it carries no points either way.
meta_robots_ai_directive_detected NOT APPLICABLE Informational signal: it is evidence of a channel, not of readiness, so it carries no points either way.
agentic_web_signals_present NOT APPLICABLE Informational signal: it is evidence of a channel, not of readiness, so it carries no points either way.
LIMITATIONS OF THIS SECTION
Business surface is assessed from the homepage's links, forms, button labels and structured data, the sitemap's URL paths, and any context the customer declared. Pages behind a login, and areas not linked from the homepage or listed in the sitemap, are not examined. Control and authority states marked 'declared' are the business's statement of intent; they are not evidence of behaviour. ARC does not attempt consequential actions during a scan. Behavioural verdicts exist only where an authorised, independently observed attempt was recorded.
04

Result & priority distribution

AUTOMATED TEST RESULTS · 45 EXECUTED
20
PASS
3
NEEDS ATTENTION
6
FAIL
10
NOT VERIFIED
6
NOT APPLICABLE

Not verified and not-applicable results are excluded from scoring entirely — never a silent pass, never a fail. A further 4 operator-verified checks are reported separately and are not counted in the 45.

MATERIAL FINDINGS BY SEVERITY · 9 TOTAL
CRITICAL 0
HIGH 3
MEDIUM 1
LOW 5
REMEDIATION PRIORITY · 8 GROUPED OPPORTUNITIES
HIGH
Answer more buyer questions in extractable text
R-01
HIGH
Provide a reliable action path
R-02
HIGH
Make primary content available without JS
R-03
MEDIUM
Mark up services and offers
R-04
LOW
Create citation-ready answer content
R-05
LOW
Strengthen trust and proof
R-06
LOW
Publish an llms.txt summary
R-07
LOW
Offer a Markdown version of key pages
R-08
COVERAGE
1 of 1 sampled pages evaluated
Representative coverage — a bounded, intelligently selected sample of this site's public pages was assessed, not an exhaustive crawl of every page.
DETECTED PLATFORM
Unknown / Manual Assessment Required
No CMS or platform fingerprint was confidently identified. This is a factor in why 8 remediation items are classified Custom Scope Review Required rather than priced automatically.
05

Findings & evidence

Every finding below is a check that actually executed. Each carries its stable ARC test ID so it can be re-tested and verified after remediation.

F-01 · AGENT INTERFACES & ACTIONABILITY HIGH FAIL

Form or reachable contact path exists

WHAT ARC FOUND
Forms: 0; /contact: None
WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN
Create an accessible contact or booking form with clear success and error states.
BUSINESS CONSEQUENCE
Actionability · Customer experience · Commercial risk. Qualitative only — ARC does not estimate revenue or financial impact.
CATEGORY
Agent Interfaces & Actionability
ARC TEST ID
form_or_contact_path_exists
COVERED BY
Remediation item R-02 — see the prioritised roadmap.
F-02 · BUSINESS UNDERSTANDING & ANSWERABILITY HIGH FAIL

Key buyer questions are answerable from retrieved content

WHAT ARC FOUND
Extractable support found for 2/9 buyer-question categories: contact, cost. This measures whether information is present, clear and extractable from retrieved content -- it is not a live test of whether an AI answer engine actually answers correctly; that is assessed separately during managed paid fulfilment.
WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN
Publish clear, extractable text sections answering the buyer questions currently missing (what/who/where/cost/how-to-buy/terms/cancellation/contact/differentiation).
BUSINESS CONSEQUENCE
Representation · Customer experience · Commercial risk. Qualitative only — ARC does not estimate revenue or financial impact.
CATEGORY
Business Understanding & Answerability
ARC TEST ID
business_answerability_extractive_coverage
COVERED BY
Remediation item R-01 — see the prioritised roadmap.
F-03 · DISCOVERY & CRAWL ACCESS HIGH NEEDS ATTENTION

Primary content does not require JavaScript execution

WHAT ARC FOUND
Static HTML has 52 visible words -- present but modest; no strong JS-dependency signal detected.
WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN
Server-render or statically pre-render the primary homepage content so it does not require JavaScript execution.
BUSINESS CONSEQUENCE
Discovery · Representation · Commercial risk. Qualitative only — ARC does not estimate revenue or financial impact.
CATEGORY
Discovery & Crawl Access
ARC TEST ID
content_available_without_js
COVERED BY
Remediation item R-03 — see the prioritised roadmap.
F-04 · MACHINE READABILITY & CONTENT STRUCTURE MEDIUM FAIL

Service/Product/Offer/FAQ schema exists

WHAT ARC FOUND
Service/Product/Offer/FAQ schema missing
WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN
Add appropriate Service, Product, Offer or FAQPage schema matching visible content.
BUSINESS CONSEQUENCE
Representation. Qualitative only — ARC does not estimate revenue or financial impact.
CATEGORY
Machine Readability & Content Structure
ARC TEST ID
service_product_offer_faq_schema
COVERED BY
Remediation item R-04 — see the prioritised roadmap.
F-05 · BUSINESS UNDERSTANDING & ANSWERABILITY LOW FAIL

About, policies, or proof signals exist

WHAT ARC FOUND
Trust/proof signals not detected
WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN
Add About, privacy or terms pages and substantiated credentials or case studies.
BUSINESS CONSEQUENCE
Trust. Qualitative only — ARC does not estimate revenue or financial impact.
CATEGORY
Business Understanding & Answerability
ARC TEST ID
about_policies_proof_signals
COVERED BY
Remediation item R-06 — see the prioritised roadmap.
F-06 · BUSINESS UNDERSTANDING & ANSWERABILITY LOW NEEDS ATTENTION

Content is substantial enough to quote

WHAT ARC FOUND
Visible word count: 52
WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN
Publish concise factual sections that answer buyer questions with attributable claims.
BUSINESS CONSEQUENCE
Representation. Qualitative only — ARC does not estimate revenue or financial impact.
CATEGORY
Business Understanding & Answerability
ARC TEST ID
content_substantial_enough_to_quote
COVERED BY
Remediation item R-05 — see the prioritised roadmap.
F-07 · MACHINE READABILITY & CONTENT STRUCTURE LOW FAIL

Freshness/date information is present where material

WHAT ARC FOUND
No date/freshness signal was found even though pricing/offer language is present.
WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN
Add a dateModified/datePublished schema field or a visible last-updated date near pricing/offer content.
BUSINESS CONSEQUENCE
Representation · Trust. Qualitative only — ARC does not estimate revenue or financial impact.
CATEGORY
Machine Readability & Content Structure
ARC TEST ID
freshness_signals_present
F-08 · MACHINE READABILITY & CONTENT STRUCTURE LOW FAIL

llms.txt is available

WHAT ARC FOUND
llms.txt not found or not well-formed
WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN
Add /llms.txt as a concise Markdown summary of the business, offerings and key pages for AI agents.
BUSINESS CONSEQUENCE
Representation. Qualitative only — ARC does not estimate revenue or financial impact.
CATEGORY
Machine Readability & Content Structure
ARC TEST ID
llms_txt_available
COVERED BY
Remediation item R-07 — see the prioritised roadmap.
F-09 · MACHINE READABILITY & CONTENT STRUCTURE LOW NEEDS ATTENTION

Markdown content negotiation or fallback is available

WHAT ARC FOUND
No Markdown content negotiation or /index.md fallback was found (not required).
WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN
Support Accept: text/markdown content negotiation or publish an /index.md fallback.
BUSINESS CONSEQUENCE
Representation. Qualitative only — ARC does not estimate revenue or financial impact.
CATEGORY
Machine Readability & Content Structure
ARC TEST ID
markdown_content_negotiation
COVERED BY
Remediation item R-08 — see the prioritised roadmap.
EXECUTED CHECKS WITH NO VERDICT — NOT PASSES
CHECK CATEGORY RESULT WHY NO VERDICT
A2A agent card is valid
a2a_agent_card_valid
Agent Interfaces & Actionability NOT VERIFIED /.well-known/agent-card.json could not be resolved (network/DNS error); presence could not be verified.
A2A behavioral verification
a2a_behavioral_verification
Agent Interfaces & Actionability NOT VERIFIED No valid A2A agent card with a usable endpoint URL was found, so no task exchange could be attempted.
Agent Skills are discoverable and well-formed
agent_skills_discoverable
Agent Interfaces & Actionability NOT VERIFIED No publicly documented, standard discovery location exists yet for an Agent Skills manifest on a public website; automating this would require inventing a non-standard convention, so it is always reported as Not verified pending a documented standard.
API Catalog is discoverable
api_catalog_available
Agent Interfaces & Actionability NOT APPLICABLE No API Catalog was found, and no developer/API surface is indicated by the site's links, forms, structured data or sitemap.
Why: No API surface is indicated by independent evidence.
MCP endpoint or manifest is discoverable
mcp_descriptor_discoverable
Agent Interfaces & Actionability NOT VERIFIED No documented, single well-known path exists for MCP manifest discovery, and no linked/referenced MCP manifest was found on the homepage or in llms.txt -- this check cannot distinguish absence from an undiscoverable-by-convention manifest, so it is reported as Not verified rather than guessed.
MCP handshake and tool quality
mcp_real_handshake_verified
Agent Interfaces & Actionability NOT VERIFIED No referenced MCP manifest was discoverable, so no handshake endpoint could be identified.
OpenAPI documentation is valid
openapi_documentation_valid
Agent Interfaces & Actionability NOT APPLICABLE No OpenAPI/Swagger document was found, and no developer/API surface is indicated by the site's links, forms, structured data or sitemap.
Why: No API surface is indicated by independent evidence.
Public transaction interface is documented
public_transaction_interface_documented
Agent Interfaces & Actionability NOT VERIFIED A transaction surface was established (commerce (cart and checkout)). No documented transaction interface was found, but a documented API is only expected if the business intends agents to transact, which has not been declared. A human-only checkout is a valid design.
Why: A transaction surface exists, but the business has not declared whether agent-executed transactions are intended.
Emerging agentic-commerce protocol signals
emerging_commerce_protocol_signals
Conversion & Agentic Commerce NOT APPLICABLE No emerging agentic-commerce protocol signal was found (not required for a typical business). This is an informational signal and is not scored; its absence is not a defect.
Why: Informational signal: it is evidence of a channel, not of readiness, so it carries no points either way.
AI-specific meta directives detected
meta_robots_ai_directive_detected
Discovery & Crawl Access NOT APPLICABLE No AI-specific meta directive found (not a defect -- this is not an established standard). This is an informational signal and is not scored; its absence is not a defect.
Why: Informational signal: it is evidence of a channel, not of readiness, so it carries no points either way.
Agent authority and limits are evidenced
agent_authority_boundaries_evidenced
Identity, Authentication & Agent Access NOT VERIFIED An authenticated or consequential surface was established (commerce (cart and checkout)), but the business has not declared whether agents are meant to act on it. No machine-readable statement of agent limits was found. Whether one is needed depends on intent the business has not declared; a human-only surface is a valid design. Declaring the intended agent policy makes this assessable.
Why: An action surface exists, but the business has not declared whether agents are meant to act on it.
OAuth Authorization Server Metadata is discoverable
oauth_authorization_server_metadata
Identity, Authentication & Agent Access NOT VERIFIED /.well-known/oauth-authorization-server could not be resolved (network/DNS error).
Why: The well-known location could not be reached; that is not evidence of absence.
OAuth Protected Resource Metadata is discoverable
oauth_protected_resource_metadata
Identity, Authentication & Agent Access NOT VERIFIED /.well-known/oauth-protected-resource could not be resolved (network/DNS error).
Why: The well-known location could not be reached; that is not evidence of absence.
Agentic Web signals present
agentic_web_signals_present
Machine Readability & Content Structure NOT APPLICABLE No emerging Agentic Web convention detected (not a defect -- these are emerging, non-standard conventions). This is an informational signal and is not scored; its absence is not a defect.
Why: Informational signal: it is evidence of a channel, not of readiness, so it carries no points either way.
llms-full.txt is available
llms_full_txt_available
Machine Readability & Content Structure NOT APPLICABLE llms-full.txt not found or too short
No duplicate/canonical content ambiguity detected
duplicate_canonical_ambiguity
Machine Readability & Content Structure NOT VERIFIED Not evaluated at homepage-only scan depth; duplicate-content comparison requires the multi-page sample gathered during a Comprehensive Audit.
06

Category assessments

Category by category: what ARC evaluated, what it scored, and what it could not score. Counts are executed automated checks; operator-verified checks are reported separately.

Discovery & Crawl Access SCORED 93/100
Evaluated 10 ARC checks in this category. 9 of 10 checks passed.
11
EXECUTED
9
PASS
1
NEEDS ATTENTION
0
FAIL
0
NOT VERIFIED
1
NOT APPLICABLE
11
IN METHODOLOGY
10
APPLICABLE
10
SCORED
1
NOT APPLICABLE
0
NOT VERIFIED
0
PENDING MANUAL
WHAT ARC TESTED

This category asks: Can AI systems find and access the information you want them to see?

ARC considered 11 automated checks in this category for this assessment: Homepage is fetchable; robots.txt is available; Site is not globally blocked; Named AI crawlers are not blocked; Redirect chain and final host are correct; XML sitemap is available; Sitemap is valid XML; Meta robots / X-Robots-Tag restrictions are documented; WAF/CDN challenge does not block plain HTTP access; Primary content does not require JavaScript execution; AI-specific meta directives detected.

WHAT ARC OBSERVED

Of 11 automated checks: 9 passed, 1 need attention, 0 failed, 0 not verified, 1 not applicable.

  • Primary content does not require JavaScript execution — NEEDS ATTENTION: Static HTML has 52 visible words -- present but modest; no strong JS-dependency signal detected.
  • AI-specific meta directives detected — NOT APPLICABLE: No AI-specific meta directive found (not a defect -- this is not an established standard). This is an informational signal and is not scored; its absence is not a defect.
WHY THIS RESULT

The category score of 93/100 comes from 10 scored checks (9 passed, 1 need attention, 0 failed). Only pass, needs-attention and fail results carry points.

Needs-attention checks mean something relevant is present but incomplete, informational or constrained.

1 check was excluded from this score (1 not applicable, 0 not verified); they neither raised nor lowered it.

WHY IT MATTERS
  • Primary content does not require JavaScript execution: Many crawlers, including some AI crawlers, do not execute JavaScript — content that only renders client-side is invisible to them.
NEXT STEP
  • Server-render or statically pre-render the primary homepage content so it does not require JavaScript execution.
FINDING Primary content does not require JavaScript execution: Static HTML has 52 visible words -- present but modest; no strong JS-dependency signal detected.
Machine Readability & Content Structure SCORED 78/100
Evaluated 11 ARC checks in this category. 6 of 11 checks passed.
13
EXECUTED
6
PASS
1
NEEDS ATTENTION
3
FAIL
1
NOT VERIFIED
2
NOT APPLICABLE
13
IN METHODOLOGY
11
APPLICABLE
10
SCORED
2
NOT APPLICABLE
1
NOT VERIFIED
0
PENDING MANUAL
WHAT ARC TESTED

This category asks: Can machines reliably read and interpret the important content on your site?

ARC considered 13 automated checks in this category for this assessment: llms.txt is available; llms-full.txt is available; Markdown content negotiation or fallback is available; Descriptive title is present; Meta description is present; Canonical URL is declared; Valid JSON-LD exists; Structured data types are relevant to the business; Service/Product/Offer/FAQ schema exists; Structured data is consistent with visible content; No duplicate/canonical content ambiguity detected; Freshness/date information is present where material; Agentic Web signals present.

WHAT ARC OBSERVED

Of 13 automated checks: 6 passed, 1 need attention, 3 failed, 1 not verified, 2 not applicable.

  • Service/Product/Offer/FAQ schema exists — FAIL: Service/Product/Offer/FAQ schema missing
  • llms.txt is available — FAIL: llms.txt not found or not well-formed
  • Freshness/date information is present where material — FAIL: No date/freshness signal was found even though pricing/offer language is present.
  • Markdown content negotiation or fallback is available — NEEDS ATTENTION: No Markdown content negotiation or /index.md fallback was found (not required).
  • llms-full.txt is available — NOT APPLICABLE: llms-full.txt not found or too short
  • Agentic Web signals present — NOT APPLICABLE: No emerging Agentic Web convention detected (not a defect -- these are emerging, non-standard conventions). This is an informational signal and is not scored; its absence is not a defect.
WHY THIS RESULT

The category score of 78/100 comes from 10 scored checks (6 passed, 1 need attention, 3 failed). Only pass, needs-attention and fail results carry points.

Failed checks mean the expected condition was not found in the evidence ARC recorded.

3 checks were excluded from this score (2 not applicable, 1 not verified); they neither raised nor lowered it.

WHY IT MATTERS
  • Service/Product/Offer/FAQ schema exists: Lets an agent resolve exactly what is being sold and its attributes, not just that the page mentions a product.
  • llms.txt is available: An emerging, optional convention giving AI agents a curated summary instead of raw HTML. Not a web standard — and Google has stated Search does not use llms.txt for its generative AI features — so absence is informational, not a critical failure.
  • Freshness/date information is present where material: An agent citing stale pricing or availability as current misleads the buyer it's assisting.
  • Markdown content negotiation or fallback is available: Some agent tooling prefers Markdown over HTML for lower-noise parsing; support is emerging, not required.
NEXT STEP
  • Add appropriate Service, Product, Offer or FAQPage schema matching visible content.
  • Add /llms.txt as a concise Markdown summary of the business, offerings and key pages for AI agents.
  • Add a dateModified/datePublished schema field or a visible last-updated date near pricing/offer content.
  • Support Accept: text/markdown content negotiation or publish an /index.md fallback.
FINDING Service/Product/Offer/FAQ schema exists: Service/Product/Offer/FAQ schema missing
FINDING llms.txt is available: llms.txt not found or not well-formed
FINDING Markdown content negotiation or fallback is available: No Markdown content negotiation or /index.md fallback was found (not required).
Business Understanding & Answerability SCORED 57/100
Evaluated 6 ARC checks in this category. 3 of 6 checks passed.
6
EXECUTED
3
PASS
1
NEEDS ATTENTION
2
FAIL
0
NOT VERIFIED
0
NOT APPLICABLE
6
IN METHODOLOGY
6
APPLICABLE
6
SCORED
0
NOT APPLICABLE
0
NOT VERIFIED
0
PENDING MANUAL
WHAT ARC TESTED

This category asks: Can AI correctly explain what your business offers and answer the questions customers actually ask?

ARC considered 6 automated checks in this category for this assessment: Content is substantial enough to quote; Company/entity name is clear; Entity schema exists; Contact identity is visible; About, policies, or proof signals exist; Key buyer questions are answerable from retrieved content.

WHAT ARC OBSERVED

Of 6 automated checks: 3 passed, 1 need attention, 2 failed, 0 not verified, 0 not applicable.

  • Key buyer questions are answerable from retrieved content — FAIL: Extractable support found for 2/9 buyer-question categories: contact, cost. This measures whether information is present, clear and extractable from retrieved content -- it is not a live test of whether an AI answer engine actually answers correctly; that is assessed separately during managed paid fulfilment.
  • About, policies, or proof signals exist — FAIL: Trust/proof signals not detected
  • Content is substantial enough to quote — NEEDS ATTENTION: Visible word count: 52
WHY THIS RESULT

The category score of 57/100 comes from 6 scored checks (3 passed, 1 need attention, 2 failed). Only pass, needs-attention and fail results carry points.

Failed checks mean the expected condition was not found in the evidence ARC recorded.

WHY IT MATTERS
  • Key buyer questions are answerable from retrieved content: A technically valid website that cannot communicate pricing, services or conversion information in extractable form gives an agent nothing reliable to work with, regardless of technical SEO health.
  • About, policies, or proof signals exist: Gives an agent secondary evidence of legitimacy beyond the homepage's own claims.
  • Content is substantial enough to quote: Agents answering buyer questions by quoting or citing a page need enough real content to extract an accurate, attributable answer.
NEXT STEP
  • Publish clear, extractable text sections answering the buyer questions currently missing (what/who/where/cost/how-to-buy/terms/cancellation/contact/differentiation).
  • Add About, privacy or terms pages and substantiated credentials or case studies.
  • Publish concise factual sections that answer buyer questions with attributable claims.
FINDING Key buyer questions are answerable from retrieved content: Extractable support found for 2/9 buyer-question categories: contact, cost. This measures whether information is present, clear and extractable from retrieved content -- it is not a live test of whether an AI answer engine actually answers correctly; that is assessed separately during managed paid fulfilment.
FINDING Content is substantial enough to quote: Visible word count: 52
FINDING About, policies, or proof signals exist: Trust/proof signals not detected
AI Visibility & Recommendation PENDING MANUAL —
No numeric score is reported for this category (pending manual). This is not a zero and not a failure.
0
EXECUTED
0
PASS
0
NEEDS ATTENTION
0
FAIL
0
NOT VERIFIED
0
NOT APPLICABLE
1
IN METHODOLOGY
0
APPLICABLE
0
SCORED
0
NOT APPLICABLE
0
NOT VERIFIED
1
PENDING MANUAL
WHAT ARC TESTED

This category asks: Does your business appear when customers use AI to research and compare providers?

ARC considered 0 automated checks and 1 operator-verified check in this category for this assessment: Do AI systems mention and recommend you?.

WHAT ARC OBSERVED

No automated check result was recorded for this category. 1 operator-verified check has no recorded result yet.

WHY THIS RESULT

No automated check in this category produced a scoreable result, and the category depends on operator-verified check with no recorded result yet. No numeric score is reported. This is not a zero and not a failure.

WHY IT MATTERS
  • Do AI systems mention and recommend you?: Technical readiness does not guarantee an AI system actually surfaces or recommends the business — this is the direct, model-observed signal of whether it does.
NEXT STEP

Complete the pending operator verification (see "What is missing").

WHAT IS MISSING
  • Do AI systems mention and recommend you?: awaiting operator verification. Benchmarks realistic non-branded buyer-intent prompts for this business's category against major AI answer engines (ChatGPT/OpenAI, Gemini, Claude, Grok, Perplexity where appropriate), recording brand mention rate, citation rate, prominence, category recommendation presence, and competitor share of voice. Performed manually by Hoshiro during paid-report fulfilment for this launch phase — not scanner-automated.
IF THIS LOOKS WRONG

If you believe the manual verification is complete or mis-scoped, contact Hoshiro Labs (reply to your report delivery email).

PENDING MANUAL Do AI systems mention and recommend you? — operator-verified check.
Agent Interfaces & Actionability SCORED 0/100
Evaluated 7 ARC checks in this category. 0 of 7 checks passed.
9
EXECUTED
0
PASS
0
NEEDS ATTENTION
1
FAIL
6
NOT VERIFIED
2
NOT APPLICABLE
10
IN METHODOLOGY
7
APPLICABLE
1
SCORED
2
NOT APPLICABLE
6
NOT VERIFIED
1
PENDING MANUAL
WHAT ARC TESTED

This category asks: Does your site expose reliable ways for AI agents to use its functions instead of guessing through the UI?

ARC considered 9 automated checks and 1 operator-verified check in this category for this assessment: Form or reachable contact path exists; OpenAPI documentation is valid; API Catalog is discoverable; MCP endpoint or manifest is discoverable; Agent Skills are discoverable and well-formed; A2A agent card is valid; MCP handshake and tool quality; A2A behavioral verification; Public transaction interface is documented; Your in-page AI tools actually work.

WHAT ARC OBSERVED

Of 9 automated checks: 0 passed, 0 need attention, 1 failed, 6 not verified, 2 not applicable. 1 operator-verified check has no recorded result yet.

  • Form or reachable contact path exists — FAIL: Forms: 0; /contact: None
  • OpenAPI documentation is valid — NOT APPLICABLE: No OpenAPI/Swagger document was found, and no developer/API surface is indicated by the site's links, forms, structured data or sitemap.
  • API Catalog is discoverable — NOT APPLICABLE: No API Catalog was found, and no developer/API surface is indicated by the site's links, forms, structured data or sitemap.
WHY THIS RESULT

The category score of 0/100 comes from 1 scored check (0 passed, 0 need attention, 1 failed). Only pass, needs-attention and fail results carry points.

Failed checks mean the expected condition was not found in the evidence ARC recorded.

8 checks were excluded from this score (2 not applicable, 6 not verified); they neither raised nor lowered it.

WHY IT MATTERS
  • Form or reachable contact path exists: The concrete mechanism an agent (or a human it is assisting) uses to actually start a transaction.
  • Your in-page AI tools actually work: A page that merely references WebMCP without correctly registered, usable tools gives an agent nothing more than a descriptor would.
NEXT STEP
  • Create an accessible contact or booking form with clear success and error states.
FINDING Form or reachable contact path exists: Forms: 0; /contact: None
PENDING MANUAL Your in-page AI tools actually work — operator-verified check.
Identity, Authentication & Agent Access NOT VERIFIED —
No numeric score is reported for this category (not verified). This is not a zero and not a failure.
3
EXECUTED
0
PASS
0
NEEDS ATTENTION
0
FAIL
3
NOT VERIFIED
0
NOT APPLICABLE
5
IN METHODOLOGY
3
APPLICABLE
0
SCORED
0
NOT APPLICABLE
3
NOT VERIFIED
1
PENDING MANUAL
WHAT ARC TESTED

This category asks: Can legitimate agents identify themselves and securely access the capabilities they are authorised to use?

ARC considered 3 automated checks and 1 operator-verified check in this category for this assessment: OAuth Authorization Server Metadata is discoverable; OAuth Protected Resource Metadata is discoverable; Agent authority and limits are evidenced; Agent sign-in actually works as documented.

  • OAuth Authorization Server Metadata is discoverable — /.well-known/oauth-authorization-server is fetchable and validates per RFC 8414. Whether it is expected is decided from the business surface and declared agent policy, not from the file's presence: Not applicable when the established surface is public/enquiry-only or the business declared agents may not act; NOT VERIFIED when the surface or intent cannot be established; evaluated when an authenticated/agent-facing surface or declared agent intent exists.
  • OAuth Protected Resource Metadata is discoverable — /.well-known/oauth-protected-resource is fetchable and validates per RFC 9728. Applicability follows the business surface and declared intent (see oauth_authorization_server_metadata). A FAIL requires proof: an agent-facing endpoint that demonstrably answered HTTP 401 while advertising no discovery path.
  • Agent authority and limits are evidenced — Where an agent-facing or consequential surface exists, checks whether anything machine-readable states what an agent may do and where its authority ends: OAuth scopes, MCP tool read-only/destructive annotations, an agent-card security requirement. It does not reward having a protocol -- an interface that publishes no limits is NEEDS ATTENTION, a business that declared agents must not act is Not applicable, and an unestablished surface is NOT VERIFIED.
WHAT ARC OBSERVED

Of 3 automated checks: 0 passed, 0 need attention, 0 failed, 3 not verified, 0 not applicable. 1 operator-verified check has no recorded result yet.

  • OAuth Authorization Server Metadata is discoverable — NOT VERIFIED: /.well-known/oauth-authorization-server could not be resolved (network/DNS error).
  • OAuth Protected Resource Metadata is discoverable — NOT VERIFIED: /.well-known/oauth-protected-resource could not be resolved (network/DNS error).
  • Agent authority and limits are evidenced — NOT VERIFIED: An authenticated or consequential surface was established (commerce (cart and checkout)), but the business has not declared whether agents are meant to act on it. No machine-readable statement of agent limits was found. Whether one is needed depends on intent the business has not declared; a human-only surface is a valid design. Declaring the intended agent policy makes this assessable.
WHY THIS RESULT

3 checks in this category could not be verified, so no check carried points. NOT VERIFIED means ARC could not reach a conclusion from the evidence available. It is not a failure and no numeric score is reported.

1 operator-verified check in this category remains pending (see below).

WHY IT MATTERS
  • Agent authority and limits are evidenced: An agent can only follow the rules it can discover. Where the business has intended limits (for example human confirmation before purchase) but nothing an agent can read states them, the limits depend on every agent guessing correctly.
  • OAuth Authorization Server Metadata is discoverable: Standard OAuth metadata lets an agent discover authorization/token endpoints and scopes without out-of-band instructions.
  • OAuth Protected Resource Metadata is discoverable: Lets an agent locate the authorization server responsible for a protected resource without prior knowledge.
  • Agent sign-in actually works as documented: Advertised auth metadata that doesn't match real service behaviour breaks every agent that trusts it.
NEXT STEP
  • OAuth Authorization Server Metadata is discoverable: A repeat assessment when the resource can be reached, or a working reference to it, would resolve this.
  • OAuth Protected Resource Metadata is discoverable: A repeat assessment when the resource can be reached, or a working reference to it, would resolve this.
  • Agent authority and limits are evidenced: Declaring whether, and how, agents are meant to act on this business (the intended agent policy), or a reassessment once the surface can be read, would resolve this.
WHAT IS MISSING
  • OAuth Authorization Server Metadata is discoverable: Network or technical limitation.
  • OAuth Protected Resource Metadata is discoverable: Network or technical limitation.
  • Agent authority and limits are evidenced: Business surface or intent not established.
  • Agent sign-in actually works as documented: awaiting operator verification. Where OAuth/agent-login metadata is published, a real authenticated flow (PKCE S256 support, usable scopes, agreement between advertised metadata and the actual protected service) is verified manually during paid fulfilment. Never attempted automatically without credentials.
IF THIS LOOKS WRONG

If you can supply the endpoint, documentation or access that ARC could not find or reach, send it to Hoshiro Labs and request a reassessment. Contact Hoshiro Labs (reply to your report delivery email).

PENDING MANUAL Agent sign-in actually works as documented — operator-verified check.
Conversion & Agentic Commerce SCORED 100/100
Evaluated 2 ARC checks in this category. 2 of 2 checks passed.
3
EXECUTED
2
PASS
0
NEEDS ATTENTION
0
FAIL
0
NOT VERIFIED
1
NOT APPLICABLE
4
IN METHODOLOGY
2
APPLICABLE
2
SCORED
1
NOT APPLICABLE
0
NOT VERIFIED
1
PENDING MANUAL
WHAT ARC TESTED

This category asks: Can an AI agent progress toward a real business outcome such as an enquiry, booking, signup or purchase?

ARC considered 3 automated checks and 1 operator-verified check in this category for this assessment: Clear conversion action is visible; Pricing or offer context is visible; Emerging agentic-commerce protocol signals; An AI agent can actually complete your primary action.

WHAT ARC OBSERVED

Of 3 automated checks: 2 passed, 0 need attention, 0 failed, 0 not verified, 1 not applicable. 1 operator-verified check has no recorded result yet.

  • Clear conversion action is visible — PASS: Action language/link detected
  • Pricing or offer context is visible — PASS: Pricing or offer language detected
WHY THIS RESULT

The category score of 100/100 comes from 2 scored checks (2 passed, 0 need attention, 0 failed). Only pass, needs-attention and fail results carry points.

Every scored check met its pass condition.

1 check was excluded from this score (1 not applicable, 0 not verified); they neither raised nor lowered it.

WHY IT MATTERS
  • An AI agent can actually complete your primary action: This is the direct test of whether an agent can actually get a customer to the outcome the business needs, not just whether the page looks navigable.
NEXT STEP

No remediation is required for the checks evaluated in this category.

PENDING MANUAL An AI agent can actually complete your primary action — operator-verified check.
07

Manual verification status

These checks are performed by a Hoshiro operator during paid-report fulfilment, never by the automated scanner. A check with no recorded result is NOT VERIFIED — not a pass.

Do AI systems mention and recommend you? NOT VERIFIED · PENDING
AI Visibility & Recommendation assessment · Technical readiness does not guarantee an AI system actually surfaces or recommends the business — this is the direct, model-observed signal of whether it does.
NOT VERIFIED — assessed manually, pending fulfilment. No result has been recorded for this check yet; this is never scored or implied as a pass. ai_visibility_brand_mention_citation
What must be verified
Benchmarks realistic non-branded buyer-intent prompts for this business's category against major AI answer engines (ChatGPT/OpenAI, Gemini, Claude, Grok, Perplexity where appropriate), recording brand mention rate, citation rate, prominence, category recommendation presence, and competitor share of voice. Performed manually by Hoshiro during paid-report fulfilment for this launch phase — not scanner-automated.
Why ARC does not do this automatically
This check is defined as operator-verified. The automated scanner never performs it.
Credentials or customer cooperation
The check definition does not state that credentials are required.
Is the report incomplete for this capability?
Yes. This capability is NOT VERIFIED in this report until a result is recorded. It is not scored, and it is neither a pass nor a failure.
How to complete it
Contact Hoshiro Labs (reply to your report delivery email) to arrange the verification. Where access is required, it must come from you.
Why it matters
Technical readiness does not guarantee an AI system actually surfaces or recommends the business — this is the direct, model-observed signal of whether it does.
Your in-page AI tools actually work NOT VERIFIED · PENDING
WebMCP tools actually work (manual) · A page that merely references WebMCP without correctly registered, usable tools gives an agent nothing more than a descriptor would.
NOT VERIFIED — assessed manually, pending fulfilment. No result has been recorded for this check yet; this is never scored or implied as a pass. webmcp_real_interaction_verified
What must be verified
Where WebMCP tool registration is detected on the page, real tool registration, naming, schema usability, and a safe task execution are verified manually during paid fulfilment.
Why ARC does not do this automatically
This check is defined as operator-verified. The automated scanner never performs it.
Credentials or customer cooperation
The check definition does not state that credentials are required.
When it applies
Applies only when the site exposes a delegated or protected agent-access surface, for example an OAuth-protected API, an MCP or A2A service with protected tools, customer accounts that agents can act within, or another authenticated agent-access surface.
Is the report incomplete for this capability?
Yes. This capability is NOT VERIFIED in this report until a result is recorded. It is not scored, and it is neither a pass nor a failure.
How to complete it
Contact Hoshiro Labs (reply to your report delivery email) to arrange the verification. Where access is required, it must come from you.
Why it matters
A page that merely references WebMCP without correctly registered, usable tools gives an agent nothing more than a descriptor would.
Agent sign-in actually works as documented NOT VERIFIED · PENDING
Authenticated agent access verification (manual) · Advertised auth metadata that doesn't match real service behaviour breaks every agent that trusts it.
NOT VERIFIED — assessed manually, pending fulfilment. No result has been recorded for this check yet; this is never scored or implied as a pass. authenticated_agent_access_verification
What must be verified
Where OAuth/agent-login metadata is published, a real authenticated flow (PKCE S256 support, usable scopes, agreement between advertised metadata and the actual protected service) is verified manually during paid fulfilment. Never attempted automatically without credentials.
Why ARC does not do this automatically
This check is defined as operator-verified. The automated scanner never performs it.
Credentials or customer cooperation
Yes. The check definition states it is never attempted without credentials, so it needs access supplied by you.
When it applies
Applies only when the site exposes a delegated or protected agent-access surface, for example an OAuth-protected API, an MCP or A2A service with protected tools, customer accounts that agents can act within, or another authenticated agent-access surface.
Is the report incomplete for this capability?
Yes. This capability is NOT VERIFIED in this report until a result is recorded. It is not scored, and it is neither a pass nor a failure.
How to complete it
Contact Hoshiro Labs (reply to your report delivery email) to arrange the verification. Where access is required, it must come from you.
Why it matters
Advertised auth metadata that doesn't match real service behaviour breaks every agent that trusts it.
An AI agent can actually complete your primary action NOT VERIFIED · PENDING
Agent task completion is verified (manual) · This is the direct test of whether an agent can actually get a customer to the outcome the business needs, not just whether the page looks navigable.
NOT VERIFIED — assessed manually, pending fulfilment. No result has been recorded for this check yet; this is never scored or implied as a pass. agent_task_completion_verified
What must be verified
A safe, non-destructive attempt to progress through the site's actual primary conversion action (enquiry/booking/signup/purchase) as an agent would, capturing where the task succeeds or breaks. Performed manually during paid fulfilment; never submits a destructive or chargeable action during an ordinary scan.
Why ARC does not do this automatically
This check is defined as operator-verified. The automated scanner never performs it.
Credentials or customer cooperation
Access may be needed if the conversion flow is gated; if it is, the result is recorded as Blocked · Pending access rather than as a pass or a failure.
Is the report incomplete for this capability?
Yes. This capability is NOT VERIFIED in this report until a result is recorded. It is not scored, and it is neither a pass nor a failure.
How to complete it
Contact Hoshiro Labs (reply to your report delivery email) to arrange the verification. Where access is required, it must come from you.
Why it matters
This is the direct test of whether an agent can actually get a customer to the outcome the business needs, not just whether the page looks navigable.
08

Prioritised remediation roadmap

Items are ordered by priority. Each states the problem, the outcome Hoshiro would deliver, the ARC tests it is verified against, and its commercial status. Implementation method is deliberately out of scope for this document.

R-01 HIGH Answer more buyer questions in extractable text Custom Scope Review Required
PROBLEM
Illustrative action derived from the current scored fictional snapshot.
DESIRED OUTCOME
Publish clear, extractable text sections answering the buyer questions currently missing (what/who/where/cost/how-to-buy/terms/cancellation/contact/differentiation).
HOSHIRO SCOPE
Publish clear, extractable text sections answering the buyer questions currently missing (what/who/where/cost/how-to-buy/terms/cancellation/contact/differentiation).
RELATED ARC TESTS
business_answerability_extractive_coverage
CUSTOMER PREREQUISITES
Confirm the actual affected pages and intended business policy before implementation.
ESTIMATED DURATION
To be scoped
COMPLEXITY
custom
COMMERCIAL STATUS
Custom Scope Review Required
R-02 HIGH Provide a reliable action path Custom Scope Review Required
PROBLEM
Illustrative action derived from the current scored fictional snapshot.
DESIRED OUTCOME
Create an accessible contact or booking form with clear success and error states.
HOSHIRO SCOPE
Create an accessible contact or booking form with clear success and error states.
RELATED ARC TESTS
form_or_contact_path_exists
CUSTOMER PREREQUISITES
Confirm the actual affected pages and intended business policy before implementation.
ESTIMATED DURATION
To be scoped
COMPLEXITY
custom
COMMERCIAL STATUS
Custom Scope Review Required
R-03 HIGH Make primary content available without JS Custom Scope Review Required
PROBLEM
Illustrative action derived from the current scored fictional snapshot.
DESIRED OUTCOME
Server-render or statically pre-render the primary homepage content so it does not require JavaScript execution.
HOSHIRO SCOPE
Server-render or statically pre-render the primary homepage content so it does not require JavaScript execution.
RELATED ARC TESTS
content_available_without_js
CUSTOMER PREREQUISITES
Confirm the actual affected pages and intended business policy before implementation.
ESTIMATED DURATION
To be scoped
COMPLEXITY
custom
COMMERCIAL STATUS
Custom Scope Review Required
R-04 MEDIUM Mark up services and offers Custom Scope Review Required
PROBLEM
Illustrative action derived from the current scored fictional snapshot.
DESIRED OUTCOME
Add appropriate Service, Product, Offer or FAQPage schema matching visible content.
HOSHIRO SCOPE
Add appropriate Service, Product, Offer or FAQPage schema matching visible content.
RELATED ARC TESTS
service_product_offer_faq_schema
CUSTOMER PREREQUISITES
Confirm the actual affected pages and intended business policy before implementation.
ESTIMATED DURATION
To be scoped
COMPLEXITY
custom
COMMERCIAL STATUS
Custom Scope Review Required
R-05 LOW Create citation-ready answer content Custom Scope Review Required
PROBLEM
Illustrative action derived from the current scored fictional snapshot.
DESIRED OUTCOME
Publish concise factual sections that answer buyer questions with attributable claims.
HOSHIRO SCOPE
Publish concise factual sections that answer buyer questions with attributable claims.
RELATED ARC TESTS
content_substantial_enough_to_quote
CUSTOMER PREREQUISITES
Confirm the actual affected pages and intended business policy before implementation.
ESTIMATED DURATION
To be scoped
COMPLEXITY
custom
COMMERCIAL STATUS
Custom Scope Review Required
R-06 LOW Strengthen trust and proof Custom Scope Review Required
PROBLEM
Illustrative action derived from the current scored fictional snapshot.
DESIRED OUTCOME
Add About, privacy or terms pages and substantiated credentials or case studies.
HOSHIRO SCOPE
Add About, privacy or terms pages and substantiated credentials or case studies.
RELATED ARC TESTS
about_policies_proof_signals
CUSTOMER PREREQUISITES
Confirm the actual affected pages and intended business policy before implementation.
ESTIMATED DURATION
To be scoped
COMPLEXITY
custom
COMMERCIAL STATUS
Custom Scope Review Required
R-07 LOW Publish an llms.txt summary Custom Scope Review Required
PROBLEM
Illustrative action derived from the current scored fictional snapshot.
DESIRED OUTCOME
Add /llms.txt as a concise Markdown summary of the business, offerings and key pages for AI agents.
HOSHIRO SCOPE
Add /llms.txt as a concise Markdown summary of the business, offerings and key pages for AI agents.
RELATED ARC TESTS
llms_txt_available
CUSTOMER PREREQUISITES
Confirm the actual affected pages and intended business policy before implementation.
ESTIMATED DURATION
To be scoped
COMPLEXITY
custom
COMMERCIAL STATUS
Custom Scope Review Required
R-08 LOW Offer a Markdown version of key pages Custom Scope Review Required
PROBLEM
Illustrative action derived from the current scored fictional snapshot.
DESIRED OUTCOME
Support Accept: text/markdown content negotiation or publish an /index.md fallback.
HOSHIRO SCOPE
Support Accept: text/markdown content negotiation or publish an /index.md fallback.
RELATED ARC TESTS
markdown_content_negotiation
CUSTOMER PREREQUISITES
Confirm the actual affected pages and intended business policy before implementation.
ESTIMATED DURATION
To be scoped
COMPLEXITY
custom
COMMERCIAL STATUS
Custom Scope Review Required
09

Commercial & scope summary

REMEDIATION ITEM PRIORITY DURATION INDICATIVE PRICE
Answer more buyer questions in extractable text
R-01
HIGH To be scoped Custom Scope Review Required
Provide a reliable action path
R-02
HIGH To be scoped Custom Scope Review Required
Make primary content available without JS
R-03
HIGH To be scoped Custom Scope Review Required
Mark up services and offers
R-04
MEDIUM To be scoped Custom Scope Review Required
Create citation-ready answer content
R-05
LOW To be scoped Custom Scope Review Required
Strengthen trust and proof
R-06
LOW To be scoped Custom Scope Review Required
Publish an llms.txt summary
R-07
LOW To be scoped Custom Scope Review Required
Offer a Markdown version of key pages
R-08
LOW To be scoped Custom Scope Review Required
8 items Custom Scope Review Required
NO PRICEABLE ITEMS IN THIS ASSESSMENT
Every item above is classified Custom Scope Review Required. No subtotal is stated: a zero figure would imply this work is free, which it is not. Pricing to be confirmed following scope review.
TIMELINE
Indicative delivery timeline subject to scope confirmation. 8 of 8 items are not yet scoped, so no combined delivery estimate is stated.
10

What ARC tested — coverage summary

Representative coverage — a bounded, intelligently selected sample of this site's public pages was assessed, not an exhaustive crawl of every page. Fetched and reviewed on 1 of 1 sampled pages. Detected platform: Unknown / Manual Assessment Required.

EXECUTED TEST COVERAGE BY CATEGORY
CATEGORY EXECUTED PASS NEEDS ATTENTION FAIL NOT VERIFIED N/A STATE
Discovery & Crawl Access 11 9 1 0 0 1 SCORED
Machine Readability & Content Structure 13 6 1 3 1 2 SCORED
Business Understanding & Answerability 6 3 1 2 0 0 SCORED
AI Visibility & Recommendation 0 0 0 0 0 0 PENDING MANUAL
Agent Interfaces & Actionability 9 0 0 1 6 2 SCORED
Identity, Authentication & Agent Access 3 0 0 0 3 0 NOT VERIFIED
Conversion & Agentic Commerce 3 2 0 0 0 1 SCORED
Total 45 20 3 6 10 6
OPERATOR-VERIFIED CHECKS · REPORTED SEPARATELY, NEVER SCORED WHILE PENDING
CHECK STATE ARC TEST ID
Do AI systems mention and recommend you? NOT VERIFIED · PENDING ai_visibility_brand_mention_citation
Your in-page AI tools actually work NOT VERIFIED · PENDING webmcp_real_interaction_verified
Agent sign-in actually works as documented NOT VERIFIED · PENDING authenticated_agent_access_verification
An AI agent can actually complete your primary action NOT VERIFIED · PENDING agent_task_completion_verified
PAGE-LEVEL EVIDENCE, CONSOLIDATED
PAGES OBSERVATION
1 of 1 Invented in-memory HTML; no network collection.

Full per-URL evidence is in appendix B; it is not repeated in the narrative above.

A

Detailed test manifest

Every automated check executed in this assessment, with its stable ARC test ID, result and recorded evidence. 45 checks, registry v2.2.0.

Discovery & Crawl Access11 checks

CHECK RESULT EVIDENCE RECORDED BY ARC
Homepage is fetchable
homepage_fetchable
PASS HTTP status: 200
Next: Return a stable 200 response for the canonical homepage and remove authentication or interstitial barriers.
What it tests
The homepage returns a successful (2xx-3xx) HTTP response.
Standard
HTTP/1.1 (RFC 9110)
Why this result
The evidence ARC recorded satisfies the condition this check looks for. HTTP status: 200.
Scoring
Included in scoring.
robots.txt is available
robots_txt_available
PASS HTTP status: 200
Next: Add /robots.txt with an explicit crawl policy and Sitemap directive.
What it tests
/robots.txt returns a successful HTTP response.
Standard
RFC 9309
Why this result
The evidence ARC recorded satisfies the condition this check looks for. HTTP status: 200.
Scoring
Included in scoring.
Site is not globally blocked
site_not_globally_blocked
PASS No global Disallow: /
Next: Review robots.txt and remove `Disallow: /` for User-agent: * unless the site is intentionally private.
What it tests
robots.txt does not contain a blanket Disallow: / for User-agent: *.
Standard
RFC 9309
Why this result
The evidence ARC recorded satisfies the condition this check looks for. No global Disallow: /.
Scoring
Included in scoring.
Named AI crawlers are not blocked
named_ai_crawlers_not_blocked
PASS No explicit AI crawler block detected
Next: Review named AI crawler rules and allow approved citation and discovery bots.
What it tests
robots.txt does not disallow any of the named AI crawlers this check recognizes (GPTBot, ClaudeBot, Google-Extended, CCBot, PerplexityBot, Amazonbot, Applebot-Extended).
Standard
RFC 9309 (named user-agent tokens)
Why this result
The evidence ARC recorded satisfies the condition this check looks for. No explicit AI crawler block detected.
Scoring
Included in scoring.
Redirect chain and final host are correct
redirect_chain_resolves_cleanly
PASS 0 redirect hop(s) to final host willow-thread.example.
Next: Reduce the homepage redirect chain to a single stable hop to its final host and remove any redirect loop.
What it tests
The homepage URL resolves in a small number of redirect hops to a single stable final host, with no redirect loop.
Standard
HTTP/1.1 (RFC 9110) redirection status codes
Why this result
The evidence ARC recorded satisfies the condition this check looks for. 0 redirect hop(s) to final host willow-thread.example.
Scoring
Included in scoring.
XML sitemap is available
xml_sitemap_available
PASS HTTP status: 200
Next: Generate /sitemap.xml with canonical public URLs and reference it in robots.txt.
What it tests
/sitemap.xml (or the Sitemap: URL declared in robots.txt) returns a successful response.
Standard
sitemaps.org Sitemap protocol
Why this result
The evidence ARC recorded satisfies the condition this check looks for. HTTP status: 200.
Scoring
Included in scoring.
Sitemap is valid XML
xml_sitemap_valid
PASS Sitemap parses as a well-formed sitemap document.
Next: Ensure /sitemap.xml is well-formed XML in the sitemap or sitemapindex namespace with real <url> entries.
What it tests
The fetched sitemap parses as well-formed XML matching the sitemap namespace, with at least one <url> entry.
Standard
sitemaps.org Sitemap protocol
Why this result
The evidence ARC recorded satisfies the condition this check looks for. Sitemap parses as a well-formed sitemap document.
Scoring
Included in scoring.
Meta robots / X-Robots-Tag restrictions are documented
meta_robots_restrictions_documented
PASS Meta robots/X-Robots-Tag directives found: 'none'.
Next: Remove any unintended noindex/nosnippet meta robots or X-Robots-Tag directive that blocks AI-search visibility.
What it tests
Records any noindex, nofollow, nosnippet, or X-Robots-Tag directive found on the homepage, and whether it blocks AI-search visibility.
Standard
robots meta tag / X-Robots-Tag (Google/Bing convention)
Why this result
The evidence ARC recorded satisfies the condition this check looks for. Meta robots/X-Robots-Tag directives found: 'none'.
Scoring
Included in scoring.
WAF/CDN challenge does not block plain HTTP access
waf_challenge_blocks_legitimate_access
PASS Homepage response does not match known bot-challenge/interstitial markers (heuristic check).
Next: Review WAF/CDN bot-challenge rules so they do not block well-identified AI crawlers along with malicious bots.
What it tests
The homepage response is not a bot-challenge/interstitial page (e.g. a JS-challenge or CAPTCHA wall) to a plain, well-identified HTTP request.
Standard
none — heuristic on response markers
Why this result
The evidence ARC recorded satisfies the condition this check looks for. Homepage response does not match known bot-challenge/interstitial markers (heuristic check).
Scoring
Included in scoring.
Primary content does not require JavaScript execution
content_available_without_js
NEEDS ATTENTION Static HTML has 52 visible words -- present but modest; no strong JS-dependency signal detected.
Next: Server-render or statically pre-render the primary homepage content so it does not require JavaScript execution.
In plain terms
Your key content is readable without running JavaScript
What it tests
Compares statically-fetched homepage content against a headless-render pass (where available); flags when meaningful content only appears after JS execution.
Standard
none — comparative heuristic
How ARC checks it
Fetches the content and parses it against the expected structure
Why this result
Something relevant is present but incomplete, informational or constrained: Static HTML has 52 visible words -- present but modest; no strong JS-dependency signal detected. It earns partial credit and is reported as needing attention rather than as a failure.
Applicability
Applicable. Applies to every site, and is scored once the evidence it depends on exists.
Why it matters
Many crawlers, including some AI crawlers, do not execute JavaScript — content that only renders client-side is invisible to them.
Recommendation
Server-render or statically pre-render the primary homepage content so it does not require JavaScript execution.
Scoring
Included in scoring.
AI-specific meta directives detected
meta_robots_ai_directive_detected
NOT APPLICABLE No AI-specific meta directive found (not a defect -- this is not an established standard). This is an informational signal and is not scored; its absence is not a defect.
Next: If an explicit AI-training opt-out is desired, add a noai/noimageai meta directive; otherwise no action is required.
In plain terms
Explicit AI-training opt-out (if set)
What it tests
Records whether a non-standard meta directive such as noai/noimageai is present. Informational only (scoring_weight 0): it moves no score in either direction, since this is not an established standard.
Standard
none — non-standard meta convention
How ARC checks it
Fetches the content and parses it against the expected structure
Why ARC treated it as outside scope
Informational signal: it is evidence of a channel, not of readiness, so it carries no points either way. ARC recorded: No AI-specific meta directive found (not a defect -- this is not an established standard). This is an informational signal and is not scored; its absence is not a defect.
What makes it applicable
Applies to every site, and is scored once the evidence it depends on exists.
Why it matters
Surfaces an explicit AI-training opt-out signal where a site owner has chosen to set one, without treating its absence as a defect.
Recommendation
If an explicit AI-training opt-out is desired, add a noai/noimageai meta directive; otherwise no action is required.
Scoring
Not included in scoring: not applicable checks carry no points and do not affect the category score.

Machine Readability & Content Structure13 checks

CHECK RESULT EVIDENCE RECORDED BY ARC
llms.txt is available
llms_txt_available
FAIL llms.txt not found or not well-formed
Next: Add /llms.txt as a concise Markdown summary of the business, offerings and key pages for AI agents.
In plain terms
You publish an llms.txt summary
What it tests
/llms.txt is fetchable and looks like the llms.txt convention (Markdown with at least one heading).
Standard
llms.txt convention (non-standard, community-driven)
How ARC checks it
Checks that the expected file is served
Why this result
Expected: /llms.txt is fetchable and looks like the llms.txt convention (Markdown with at least one heading). Found: llms.txt not found or not well-formed. The expected condition was not present in the evidence ARC recorded, so the check failed.
Applicability
Applicable. Applies to every site, and is scored once the evidence it depends on exists.
Why it matters
An emerging, optional convention giving AI agents a curated summary instead of raw HTML. Not a web standard — and Google has stated Search does not use llms.txt for its generative AI features — so absence is informational, not a critical failure.
Recommendation
Add /llms.txt as a concise Markdown summary of the business, offerings and key pages for AI agents.
Scoring
Included in scoring.
llms-full.txt is available
llms_full_txt_available
NOT APPLICABLE llms-full.txt not found or too short
Next: Add /llms-full.txt as a fuller Markdown reference alongside llms.txt.
In plain terms
You publish an expanded llms-full.txt
What it tests
/llms-full.txt is fetchable and non-trivial in length.
Standard
llms.txt convention (non-standard, community-driven)
How ARC checks it
Checks that the expected file is served
Why ARC treated it as outside scope
The condition that makes this check applicable was not met for this site. ARC recorded: llms-full.txt not found or too short.
What makes it applicable
Applies to every site, and is scored once the evidence it depends on exists.
Why it matters
Where present, gives agents that consume the llms.txt convention a fuller reference than the summary file alone. Same non-standard, informational status as llms.txt.
Recommendation
Add /llms-full.txt as a fuller Markdown reference alongside llms.txt.
Scoring
Not included in scoring: not applicable checks carry no points and do not affect the category score.
Markdown content negotiation or fallback is available
markdown_content_negotiation
NEEDS ATTENTION No Markdown content negotiation or /index.md fallback was found (not required).
Next: Support Accept: text/markdown content negotiation or publish an /index.md fallback.
In plain terms
You offer a Markdown version of your pages
What it tests
Requesting the homepage with Accept: text/markdown returns Markdown, or an /index.md fallback exists.
Standard
HTTP content negotiation (RFC 9110 Accept header); no fixed community standard for the Markdown convention itself
How ARC checks it
Requests the resource and reads the HTTP response
Why this result
Something relevant is present but incomplete, informational or constrained: No Markdown content negotiation or /index.md fallback was found (not required). It earns partial credit and is reported as needing attention rather than as a failure.
Applicability
Applicable. Applies to every site, and is scored once the evidence it depends on exists.
Why it matters
Some agent tooling prefers Markdown over HTML for lower-noise parsing; support is emerging, not required.
Recommendation
Support Accept: text/markdown content negotiation or publish an /index.md fallback.
Scoring
Included in scoring.
Descriptive title is present
descriptive_title_present
PASS Title: Willow & Thread — fictional apparel store
Next: Set a homepage <title> of at least 10 characters that clearly states the business/page identity.
What it tests
The homepage's <title> element is at least 10 characters long.
Standard
HTML Living Standard <title>
Why this result
The evidence ARC recorded satisfies the condition this check looks for. Title: Willow & Thread — fictional apparel store.
Scoring
Included in scoring.
Meta description is present
meta_description_present
PASS Description metadata found
Next: Add a unique meta description stating who the company serves and what it provides.
What it tests
A meta or og:description tag with non-empty content is present.
Standard
HTML meta description / Open Graph og:description
Why this result
The evidence ARC recorded satisfies the condition this check looks for. Description metadata found.
Scoring
Included in scoring.
Canonical URL is declared
canonical_url_tag_present
PASS Canonical URL: https://willow-thread.example/
Next: Add <link rel="canonical" href="..."> pointing at the preferred absolute homepage URL.
What it tests
The homepage declares a <link rel="canonical"> pointing to an absolute URL.
Standard
HTML <link rel="canonical">
Why this result
The evidence ARC recorded satisfies the condition this check looks for. Canonical URL: https://willow-thread.example/.
Scoring
Included in scoring.
Valid JSON-LD exists
valid_json_ld_exists
PASS Types: Organization
Next: Embed tested schema.org JSON-LD in the homepage head.
What it tests
At least one schema.org @type is present in a JSON-LD block on the homepage (including client-rendered content where a render fallback succeeded).
Standard
schema.org / JSON-LD (W3C)
Why this result
The evidence ARC recorded satisfies the condition this check looks for. Types: Organization.
Scoring
Included in scoring.
Structured data types are relevant to the business
schema_types_relevant_to_business
PASS Meaningful (non-boilerplate) schema types found: Organization
Next: Replace boilerplate-only schema (WebSite/WebPage) with a type matching the actual business (e.g. LocalBusiness, Organization, Product).
What it tests
Where an entity/commercial schema type is present, checks it against an expected type family (e.g. LocalBusiness for a storefront, Organization generically) rather than crediting any JSON-LD at all.
Standard
schema.org type hierarchy
Why this result
The evidence ARC recorded satisfies the condition this check looks for. Meaningful (non-boilerplate) schema types found: Organization.
Scoring
Included in scoring.
Service/Product/Offer/FAQ schema exists
service_product_offer_faq_schema
FAIL Service/Product/Offer/FAQ schema missing
Next: Add appropriate Service, Product, Offer or FAQPage schema matching visible content.
In plain terms
Your offerings are marked up in structured data
What it tests
JSON-LD includes at least one of Service, Product, Offer, or FAQPage.
Standard
schema.org Service/Product/Offer/FAQPage
How ARC checks it
Fetches the content and parses it against the expected structure
Why this result
Expected: JSON-LD includes at least one of Service, Product, Offer, or FAQPage. Found: Service/Product/Offer/FAQ schema missing. The expected condition was not present in the evidence ARC recorded, so the check failed.
Applicability
Applicable. Applies to every site, and is scored once the evidence it depends on exists.
Why it matters
Lets an agent resolve exactly what is being sold and its attributes, not just that the page mentions a product.
Recommendation
Add appropriate Service, Product, Offer or FAQPage schema matching visible content.
Scoring
Included in scoring.
Structured data is consistent with visible content
structured_data_matches_visible_content
PASS No comparable structured-vs-visible fact (e.g. price) was found to cross-check.
Next: Correct the JSON-LD or on-page copy so a fact stated in both places (e.g. price) does not contradict itself.
What it tests
Where both JSON-LD and visible text state a comparable fact (e.g. a price), checks they do not directly contradict each other.
Standard
schema.org / JSON-LD (W3C) consistency heuristic
Why this result
The evidence ARC recorded satisfies the condition this check looks for. No comparable structured-vs-visible fact (e.g. price) was found to cross-check.
Scoring
Included in scoring.
No duplicate/canonical content ambiguity detected
duplicate_canonical_ambiguity
NOT VERIFIED Not evaluated at homepage-only scan depth; duplicate-content comparison requires the multi-page sample gathered during a Comprehensive Audit.
Next: Review sampled pages for duplicate content and declare a canonical URL for each duplicate cluster.
In plain terms
Your site isn't creating duplicate-content confusion
What it tests
Flags when sampled pages appear to duplicate the homepage content without a canonical tag resolving the ambiguity.
Standard
HTML <link rel="canonical"> consistency heuristic
How ARC checks it
Fetches the content and parses it against the expected structure
What ARC attempted
ARC ran this check as defined (Flags when sampled pages appear to duplicate the homepage content without a canonical tag resolving the ambiguity.) and recorded: Not evaluated at homepage-only scan depth; duplicate-content comparison requires the multi-page sample gathered during a Comprehensive Audit.
Why it could not be verified
Live or deeper verification not performed in this assessment.
What would resolve it
Running that deeper step, or recording it through operator verification, would resolve this.
Applicability
Applicable. Applies to every site, and is scored once the evidence it depends on exists.
Why it matters
Ambiguous duplicate content makes it harder for an agent to know which version to cite or trust.
Recommendation
Review sampled pages for duplicate content and declare a canonical URL for each duplicate cluster.
Scoring
Not included in scoring: not verified checks carry no points. NOT VERIFIED means ARC could not reach a conclusion; it is not a failure.
Freshness/date information is present where material
freshness_signals_present
FAIL No date/freshness signal was found even though pricing/offer language is present.
Next: Add a dateModified/datePublished schema field or a visible last-updated date near pricing/offer content.
In plain terms
Time-sensitive content shows a date
What it tests
Where a datePublished/dateModified schema field or a visible last-updated date is expected (e.g. pricing, offers), checks one is present.
Standard
schema.org dateModified/datePublished
How ARC checks it
Fetches the content and parses it against the expected structure
Why this result
Expected: Where a datePublished/dateModified schema field or a visible last-updated date is expected (e.g. pricing, offers), checks one is present. Found: No date/freshness signal was found even though pricing/offer language is present. The expected condition was not present in the evidence ARC recorded, so the check failed.
Applicability
Applicable. Applies to every site, and is scored once the evidence it depends on exists.
Why it matters
An agent citing stale pricing or availability as current misleads the buyer it's assisting.
Recommendation
Add a dateModified/datePublished schema field or a visible last-updated date near pricing/offer content.
Scoring
Included in scoring.
Agentic Web signals present
agentic_web_signals_present
NOT APPLICABLE No emerging Agentic Web convention detected (not a defect -- these are emerging, non-standard conventions). This is an informational signal and is not scored; its absence is not a defect.
Next: Consider publishing llms.txt, a documented API, or a referenced MCP manifest as these conventions mature -- not required today.
In plain terms
You show at least one emerging AI-agent convention
What it tests
Detects any publicly linked llms.txt, OpenAPI spec, or MCP-manifest-looking resource as a bundle of emerging-convention signals. Informational only (scoring_weight 0) as of 2.2.0: a count of conventions is not readiness, so presence adds nothing and absence costs nothing. The individual checks (llms.txt, OpenAPI, MCP) remain.
Standard
none — composite of llms.txt/OpenAPI/MCP descriptor presence
How ARC checks it
Looks for a published descriptor; presence alone does not prove behaviour
Why ARC treated it as outside scope
Informational signal: it is evidence of a channel, not of readiness, so it carries no points either way. ARC recorded: No emerging Agentic Web convention detected (not a defect -- these are emerging, non-standard conventions). This is an informational signal and is not scored; its absence is not a defect.
What makes it applicable
Applies to every site, and is scored once the evidence it depends on exists.
Why it matters
These are emerging, non-standard conventions. Their presence is context for the report; it is never counted as agent readiness on its own.
Recommendation
Consider publishing llms.txt, a documented API, or a referenced MCP manifest as these conventions mature -- not required today.
Scoring
Not included in scoring: not applicable checks carry no points and do not affect the category score.

Business Understanding & Answerability6 checks

CHECK RESULT EVIDENCE RECORDED BY ARC
Content is substantial enough to quote
content_substantial_enough_to_quote
NEEDS ATTENTION Visible word count: 52
Next: Publish concise factual sections that answer buyer questions with attributable claims.
In plain terms
You have enough real content to be quoted
What it tests
The homepage's visible text is at least 150 words (partial credit at 50+).
Standard
none — word-count heuristic
How ARC checks it
Reads the visible page text for the expected signal
Why this result
Something relevant is present but incomplete, informational or constrained: Visible word count: 52. It earns partial credit and is reported as needing attention rather than as a failure.
Applicability
Applicable. Applies to every site, and is scored once the evidence it depends on exists.
Why it matters
Agents answering buyer questions by quoting or citing a page need enough real content to extract an accurate, attributable answer.
Recommendation
Publish concise factual sections that answer buyer questions with attributable claims.
Scoring
Included in scoring.
Company/entity name is clear
entity_name_clear
PASS Title provides entity context
Next: Set a non-empty, descriptive homepage <title> that clearly identifies the business.
What it tests
The homepage has a non-empty <title>. This checks only for a page-title identity signal, not a verified business-registry identity.
Standard
HTML <title>
Why this result
The evidence ARC recorded satisfies the condition this check looks for. Title provides entity context.
Scoring
Included in scoring.
Entity schema exists
entity_schema_exists
PASS Entity type detected
Next: Add Organization or LocalBusiness JSON-LD with name, URL, logo and contact details.
What it tests
JSON-LD includes an Organization, LocalBusiness, Corporation, Person, or ProfessionalService type.
Standard
schema.org Organization/LocalBusiness
Why this result
The evidence ARC recorded satisfies the condition this check looks for. Entity type detected.
Scoring
Included in scoring.
Contact identity is visible
contact_identity_visible
PASS Contact signal detected
Next: Expose business name and an appropriate contact path in crawlable HTML.
What it tests
The homepage's text or links contain a contact/email/phone/address signal word.
Standard
none — text heuristic
Why this result
The evidence ARC recorded satisfies the condition this check looks for. Contact signal detected.
Scoring
Included in scoring.
About, policies, or proof signals exist
about_policies_proof_signals
FAIL Trust/proof signals not detected
Next: Add About, privacy or terms pages and substantiated credentials or case studies.
In plain terms
You show proof and policy information
What it tests
The homepage's text contains about/privacy/terms/testimonial/case-study/review language.
Standard
none — text heuristic
How ARC checks it
Reads the visible page text for the expected signal
Why this result
Expected: The homepage's text contains about/privacy/terms/testimonial/case-study/review language. Found: Trust/proof signals not detected. The expected condition was not present in the evidence ARC recorded, so the check failed.
Applicability
Applicable. Applies to every site, and is scored once the evidence it depends on exists.
Why it matters
Gives an agent secondary evidence of legitimacy beyond the homepage's own claims.
Recommendation
Add About, privacy or terms pages and substantiated credentials or case studies.
Scoring
Included in scoring.
Key buyer questions are answerable from retrieved content
business_answerability_extractive_coverage
FAIL Extractable support found for 2/9 buyer-question categories: contact, cost. This measures whether information is present, clear and extractable from retrieved content -- it is not a live test of whether an AI answer engine actually answers correctly; that is assessed separately during managed paid fulfilment.
Next: Publish clear, extractable text sections answering the buyer questions currently missing (what/who/where/cost/how-to-buy/terms/cancellation/contact/differentiation).
In plain terms
AI can find answers to the questions buyers actually ask
What it tests
For each applicable buyer question (what/who/where/cost/how-to-buy/terms/cancellation/contact/differentiation), checks whether retrieved page content contains extractable supporting text, and records the answer, evidence URL, and confidence. Never fabricates an answer when no supporting text was found. This measures whether information is present, clear, and extractable — it is not a live test of whether an AI answer engine actually answers correctly; that is assessed separately during managed paid fulfilment.
Standard
none — rule-based extractive analysis over retrieved evidence
How ARC checks it
Fetches the content and parses it against the expected structure
Why this result
Expected: For each applicable buyer question (what/who/where/cost/how-to-buy/terms/cancellation/contact/differentiation), checks whether retrieved page content contains extractable supporting text, and records the answer, evidence URL, and confidence. Never fabricates an answer when no supporting text was found. This measures whether information is present, clear, and extractable — it is not a live test of whether an AI answer engine actually answers correctly; that is assessed separately during managed paid fulfilment. Found: Extractable support found for 2/9 buyer-question categories: contact, cost. This measures whether information is present, clear and extractable from retrieved content -- it is not a live test of whether an AI answer engine actually answers correctly; that is assessed separately during managed paid fulfilment. The expected condition was not present in the evidence ARC recorded, so the check failed.
Applicability
Applicable. Applies to every site, and is scored once the evidence it depends on exists.
Why it matters
A technically valid website that cannot communicate pricing, services or conversion information in extractable form gives an agent nothing reliable to work with, regardless of technical SEO health.
Recommendation
Publish clear, extractable text sections answering the buyer questions currently missing (what/who/where/cost/how-to-buy/terms/cancellation/contact/differentiation).
Scoring
Included in scoring.

Agent Interfaces & Actionability9 checks

CHECK RESULT EVIDENCE RECORDED BY ARC
Form or reachable contact path exists
form_or_contact_path_exists
FAIL Forms: 0; /contact: None
Next: Create an accessible contact or booking form with clear success and error states.
In plain terms
There's a working way to reach you
What it tests
The homepage contains an HTML <form>, or /contact returns a successful HTTP response.
Standard
HTML <form>
How ARC checks it
Inspects the page markup for the expected element
Why this result
Expected: The homepage contains an HTML <form>, or /contact returns a successful HTTP response. Found: Forms: 0; /contact: None. The expected condition was not present in the evidence ARC recorded, so the check failed.
Applicability
Applicable. Applies to every site, and is scored once the evidence it depends on exists.
Why it matters
The concrete mechanism an agent (or a human it is assisting) uses to actually start a transaction.
Recommendation
Create an accessible contact or booking form with clear success and error states.
Scoring
Included in scoring.
OpenAPI documentation is valid
openapi_documentation_valid
NOT APPLICABLE No OpenAPI/Swagger document was found, and no developer/API surface is indicated by the site's links, forms, structured data or sitemap.
Next: Serve a real, parseable OpenAPI/Swagger document at the documented API path instead of an SPA catch-all page.
In plain terms
Your API is documented in a machine-readable way
What it tests
A probed OpenAPI/Swagger document is served and actually parses as a valid OpenAPI/Swagger document (not merely a 200 response from an SPA catch-all). Not applicable when no API surface is indicated by independent evidence; NOT VERIFIED when a developer/API surface is indicated (e.g. a link to API docs) but no machine-readable description was found at the probed locations.
Standard
OpenAPI Specification
How ARC checks it
Fetches the content and parses it against the expected structure
Why ARC treated it as outside scope
No API surface is indicated by independent evidence. ARC recorded: No OpenAPI/Swagger document was found, and no developer/API surface is indicated by the site's links, forms, structured data or sitemap.
What makes it applicable
Applies only when the site exposes a public API or developer surface, for example a documented API or an OpenAPI/Swagger description.
Why it matters
Only relevant where a real commercial API use case exists; this scanner never invents an API as a requirement.
Recommendation
Serve a real, parseable OpenAPI/Swagger document at the documented API path instead of an SPA catch-all page.
Scoring
Not included in scoring: not applicable checks carry no points and do not affect the category score.
API Catalog is discoverable
api_catalog_available
NOT APPLICABLE No API Catalog was found, and no developer/API surface is indicated by the site's links, forms, structured data or sitemap.
Next: Add /.well-known/api-catalog per RFC 9727 listing the site's public APIs.
In plain terms
Your APIs are listed in a standard catalog
What it tests
/.well-known/api-catalog is fetchable and parses per RFC 9727.
Standard
RFC 9727
How ARC checks it
Checks that the expected file is served
Why ARC treated it as outside scope
No API surface is indicated by independent evidence. ARC recorded: No API Catalog was found, and no developer/API surface is indicated by the site's links, forms, structured data or sitemap.
What makes it applicable
Applies only when the site exposes a public API or developer surface, for example a documented API or an OpenAPI/Swagger description.
Why it matters
A standard catalog location lets an agent discover all of a site's APIs without guessing paths.
Recommendation
Add /.well-known/api-catalog per RFC 9727 listing the site's public APIs.
Scoring
Not included in scoring: not applicable checks carry no points and do not affect the category score.
MCP endpoint or manifest is discoverable
mcp_descriptor_discoverable
NOT VERIFIED No documented, single well-known path exists for MCP manifest discovery, and no linked/referenced MCP manifest was found on the homepage or in llms.txt -- this check cannot distinguish absence from an undiscoverable-by-convention manifest, so it is reported as Not verified rather than guessed.
Next: Link to the MCP server manifest from the homepage or llms.txt, and ensure it parses as valid JSON with the expected MCP shape.
In plain terms
AI agents can discover your MCP tools
What it tests
A documented/well-known MCP endpoint or server manifest is publicly discoverable and its manifest parses as valid JSON with the expected MCP shape. This checks discoverability only — a real MCP handshake and tool-quality review is performed manually during paid fulfilment and recorded separately, never assumed from descriptor presence alone.
Standard
Model Context Protocol specification (well-known manifest convention)
How ARC checks it
Looks for a published descriptor; presence alone does not prove behaviour
What ARC attempted
ARC ran this check as defined (A documented/well-known MCP endpoint or server manifest is publicly discoverable and its manifest parses as valid JSON with the expected MCP shape. This checks discoverability only — a real MCP handshake and tool-quality review is performed manually during paid fulfilment and recorded separately, never assumed from descriptor presence alone.) and recorded: No documented, single well-known path exists for MCP manifest discovery, and no linked/referenced MCP manifest was found on the homepage or in llms.txt -- this check cannot distinguish absence from an undiscoverable-by-convention manifest, so it is reported as Not verified rather than guessed.
Why it could not be verified
No reliable discovery convention.
What would resolve it
A published, documented location or a direct endpoint reference from you would allow this to be checked.
Applicability
Applicable. Applies only when the site exposes a delegated or protected agent-access surface, for example an OAuth-protected API, an MCP or A2A service with protected tools, customer accounts that agents can act within, or another authenticated agent-access surface.
Why it matters
Descriptor discoverability is a prerequisite for any agent to even attempt a connection, but presence alone does not prove the server actually works.
Recommendation
Link to the MCP server manifest from the homepage or llms.txt, and ensure it parses as valid JSON with the expected MCP shape.
Scoring
Not included in scoring: not verified checks carry no points. NOT VERIFIED means ARC could not reach a conclusion; it is not a failure.
Agent Skills are discoverable and well-formed
agent_skills_discoverable
NOT VERIFIED No publicly documented, standard discovery location exists yet for an Agent Skills manifest on a public website; automating this would require inventing a non-standard convention, so it is always reported as Not verified pending a documented standard.
Next: Once a standard discovery convention exists, publish and link an Agent Skills manifest there.
In plain terms
Your agent skills are published correctly
What it tests
Where an Agent Skills manifest is published at its documented location, checks it parses and includes usable capability descriptions.
Standard
Agent Skills convention (emerging, non-standard)
How ARC checks it
Looks for a published descriptor; presence alone does not prove behaviour
What ARC attempted
ARC ran this check as defined (Where an Agent Skills manifest is published at its documented location, checks it parses and includes usable capability descriptions.) and recorded: No publicly documented, standard discovery location exists yet for an Agent Skills manifest on a public website; automating this would require inventing a non-standard convention, so it is always reported as Not verified pending a documented standard.
Why it could not be verified
No reliable discovery convention.
What would resolve it
A published, documented location or a direct endpoint reference from you would allow this to be checked.
Applicability
Applicable. Applies only when the site exposes a delegated or protected agent-access surface, for example an OAuth-protected API, an MCP or A2A service with protected tools, customer accounts that agents can act within, or another authenticated agent-access surface.
Why it matters
Malformed or vague skill descriptions are effectively invisible to an agent trying to decide when to use them.
Recommendation
Once a standard discovery convention exists, publish and link an Agent Skills manifest there.
Scoring
Not included in scoring: not verified checks carry no points. NOT VERIFIED means ARC could not reach a conclusion; it is not a failure.
A2A agent card is valid
a2a_agent_card_valid
NOT VERIFIED /.well-known/agent-card.json could not be resolved (network/DNS error); presence could not be verified.
Next: Ensure /.well-known/agent-card.json includes identity (name, url) and a skills/capabilities declaration.
In plain terms
Your agent-to-agent identity card is correct
What it tests
/.well-known/agent-card.json is fetchable and validates against the expected A2A shape (identity, endpoints, skills, security metadata).
Standard
A2A Protocol specification (/.well-known/agent-card.json)
How ARC checks it
Fetches the content and parses it against the expected structure
What ARC attempted
ARC ran this check as defined (/.well-known/agent-card.json is fetchable and validates against the expected A2A shape (identity, endpoints, skills, security metadata).) and recorded: /.well-known/agent-card.json could not be resolved (network/DNS error); presence could not be verified.
Why it could not be verified
Network or technical limitation.
What would resolve it
A repeat assessment when the resource can be reached, or a working reference to it, would resolve this.
Applicability
Applicable. Applies only when the site exposes a delegated or protected agent-access surface, for example an OAuth-protected API, an MCP or A2A service with protected tools, customer accounts that agents can act within, or another authenticated agent-access surface.
Why it matters
A malformed agent card breaks discovery for any A2A-capable agent trying to interoperate with this service.
Recommendation
Ensure /.well-known/agent-card.json includes identity (name, url) and a skills/capabilities declaration.
Scoring
Not included in scoring: not verified checks carry no points. NOT VERIFIED means ARC could not reach a conclusion; it is not a failure.
MCP handshake and tool quality
mcp_real_handshake_verified
NOT VERIFIED No referenced MCP manifest was discoverable, so no handshake endpoint could be identified.
Next: Ensure the MCP endpoint completes initialize + tools/list over the Streamable HTTP transport, and that every tool has a unique name and a usable description/inputSchema.
In plain terms
Your MCP server actually works
What it tests
A real MCP connection is attempted (initialize + tools/list JSON-RPC over the Streamable HTTP transport) against the referenced manifest's endpoint, and returned tool names/descriptions/input schemas are checked for clarity and non-overlap. No tool is ever invoked.
Standard
Model Context Protocol specification (2025-06-18 Streamable HTTP transport)
How ARC checks it
Attempts a real protocol handshake
What ARC attempted
ARC ran this check as defined (A real MCP connection is attempted (initialize + tools/list JSON-RPC over the Streamable HTTP transport) against the referenced manifest's endpoint, and returned tool names/descriptions/input schemas are checked for clarity and non-overlap. No tool is ever invoked.) and recorded: No referenced MCP manifest was discoverable, so no handshake endpoint could be identified.
Why it could not be verified
Missing endpoint reference.
What would resolve it
Publishing a discoverable reference, or giving Hoshiro Labs the endpoint directly, would allow this to be checked.
Applicability
Applicable. Applies only when the site exposes a delegated or protected agent-access surface, for example an OAuth-protected API, an MCP or A2A service with protected tools, customer accounts that agents can act within, or another authenticated agent-access surface.
Why it matters
A published MCP descriptor that fails a real handshake gives agents nothing — real behaviour matters more than file presence.
Recommendation
Ensure the MCP endpoint completes initialize + tools/list over the Streamable HTTP transport, and that every tool has a unique name and a usable description/inputSchema.
Scoring
Not included in scoring: not verified checks carry no points. NOT VERIFIED means ARC could not reach a conclusion; it is not a failure.
A2A behavioral verification
a2a_behavioral_verification
NOT VERIFIED No valid A2A agent card with a usable endpoint URL was found, so no task exchange could be attempted.
Next: Ensure the agent card's url endpoint accepts a message/send JSON-RPC call and returns a valid Task or Message result.
In plain terms
Your agent-to-agent service actually responds correctly
What it tests
Where a valid agent card's `url` is present, a real A2A `message/send` task exchange is attempted with a short, generic capability-discovery message (never a transactional one).
Standard
A2A Protocol specification
How ARC checks it
Attempts a real protocol call
What ARC attempted
ARC ran this check as defined (Where a valid agent card's `url` is present, a real A2A `message/send` task exchange is attempted with a short, generic capability-discovery message (never a transactional one).) and recorded: No valid A2A agent card with a usable endpoint URL was found, so no task exchange could be attempted.
Why it could not be verified
Missing endpoint reference.
What would resolve it
Publishing a discoverable reference, or giving Hoshiro Labs the endpoint directly, would allow this to be checked.
Applicability
Applicable. Applies only when the site exposes a delegated or protected agent-access surface, for example an OAuth-protected API, an MCP or A2A service with protected tools, customer accounts that agents can act within, or another authenticated agent-access surface.
Why it matters
A valid-looking agent card does not guarantee the underlying service behaves correctly under a real task exchange.
Recommendation
Ensure the agent card's url endpoint accepts a message/send JSON-RPC call and returns a valid Task or Message result.
Scoring
Not included in scoring: not verified checks carry no points. NOT VERIFIED means ARC could not reach a conclusion; it is not a failure.
Public transaction interface is documented
public_transaction_interface_documented
NOT VERIFIED A transaction surface was established (commerce (cart and checkout)). No documented transaction interface was found, but a documented API is only expected if the business intends agents to transact, which has not been declared. A human-only checkout is a valid design.
Next: If transactions are supported, document a narrow public interface and its required approval or authentication controls.
In plain terms
Your transaction API is documented
What it tests
Same OpenAPI/API-docs signal as openapi_documentation_valid, presented as a transaction-readiness signal. Evaluated only where the business intends agent-executed transactions (declared policy) or already publishes an interface; a commerce site with no declared intent is NOT VERIFIED and one that declared agents must not transact is Not applicable. Having a transaction API is never assumed to be the goal.
Standard
OpenAPI Specification
How ARC checks it
Fetches the content and parses it against the expected structure
What ARC attempted
ARC ran this check as defined (Same OpenAPI/API-docs signal as openapi_documentation_valid, presented as a transaction-readiness signal. Evaluated only where the business intends agent-executed transactions (declared policy) or already publishes an interface; a commerce site with no declared intent is NOT VERIFIED and one that declared agents must not transact is Not applicable. Having a transaction API is never assumed to be the goal.) and recorded: A transaction surface was established (commerce (cart and checkout)). No documented transaction interface was found, but a documented API is only expected if the business intends agents to transact, which has not been declared. A human-only checkout is a valid design.
Why it could not be verified
No reliable discovery convention.
In terms of the business
A transaction surface exists, but the business has not declared whether agent-executed transactions are intended.
What would resolve it
A published, documented location or a direct endpoint reference from you would allow this to be checked.
Applicability
Applicable. Applies only when the business supports online transactions or agent-executed commerce.
Why it matters
Where a business genuinely supports agent-executed transactions, a documented public interface lets agents act safely within defined boundaries.
Recommendation
If transactions are supported, document a narrow public interface and its required approval or authentication controls.
Scoring
Not included in scoring: not verified checks carry no points. NOT VERIFIED means ARC could not reach a conclusion; it is not a failure.

Identity, Authentication & Agent Access3 checks

CHECK RESULT EVIDENCE RECORDED BY ARC
OAuth Authorization Server Metadata is discoverable
oauth_authorization_server_metadata
NOT VERIFIED /.well-known/oauth-authorization-server could not be resolved (network/DNS error).
Next: Add /.well-known/oauth-authorization-server per RFC 8414 with issuer, endpoints and response_types_supported.
In plain terms
Delegated agent access is discoverable
What it tests
/.well-known/oauth-authorization-server is fetchable and validates per RFC 8414. Whether it is expected is decided from the business surface and declared agent policy, not from the file's presence: Not applicable when the established surface is public/enquiry-only or the business declared agents may not act; NOT VERIFIED when the surface or intent cannot be established; evaluated when an authenticated/agent-facing surface or declared agent intent exists.
Standard
RFC 8414
How ARC checks it
Fetches the content and parses it against the expected structure
What ARC attempted
ARC ran this check as defined (/.well-known/oauth-authorization-server is fetchable and validates per RFC 8414. Whether it is expected is decided from the business surface and declared agent policy, not from the file's presence: Not applicable when the established surface is public/enquiry-only or the business declared agents may not act; NOT VERIFIED when the surface or intent cannot be established; evaluated when an authenticated/agent-facing surface or declared agent intent exists.) and recorded: /.well-known/oauth-authorization-server could not be resolved (network/DNS error).
Why it could not be verified
Network or technical limitation.
In terms of the business
The well-known location could not be reached; that is not evidence of absence.
What would resolve it
A repeat assessment when the resource can be reached, or a working reference to it, would resolve this.
Applicability
Applicable. Applies only when the business surface ARC established includes an authenticated or consequential action surface and the business intends agents to act on it (declared), or an agent-facing interface is published or demonstrably requires authentication. A public or enquiry-only site, or one that declares agents must not act, is outside scope.
Why it matters
Standard OAuth metadata lets an agent discover authorization/token endpoints and scopes without out-of-band instructions.
Recommendation
Add /.well-known/oauth-authorization-server per RFC 8414 with issuer, endpoints and response_types_supported.
Scoring
Not included in scoring: not verified checks carry no points. NOT VERIFIED means ARC could not reach a conclusion; it is not a failure.
OAuth Protected Resource Metadata is discoverable
oauth_protected_resource_metadata
NOT VERIFIED /.well-known/oauth-protected-resource could not be resolved (network/DNS error).
Next: Add /.well-known/oauth-protected-resource per RFC 9728 with resource and authorization_servers.
In plain terms
Protected agent resources are discoverable
What it tests
/.well-known/oauth-protected-resource is fetchable and validates per RFC 9728. Applicability follows the business surface and declared intent (see oauth_authorization_server_metadata). A FAIL requires proof: an agent-facing endpoint that demonstrably answered HTTP 401 while advertising no discovery path.
Standard
RFC 9728
How ARC checks it
Fetches the content and parses it against the expected structure
What ARC attempted
ARC ran this check as defined (/.well-known/oauth-protected-resource is fetchable and validates per RFC 9728. Applicability follows the business surface and declared intent (see oauth_authorization_server_metadata). A FAIL requires proof: an agent-facing endpoint that demonstrably answered HTTP 401 while advertising no discovery path.) and recorded: /.well-known/oauth-protected-resource could not be resolved (network/DNS error).
Why it could not be verified
Network or technical limitation.
In terms of the business
The well-known location could not be reached; that is not evidence of absence.
What would resolve it
A repeat assessment when the resource can be reached, or a working reference to it, would resolve this.
Applicability
Applicable. Applies only when the business surface ARC established includes an authenticated or consequential action surface and the business intends agents to act on it (declared), or an agent-facing interface is published or demonstrably requires authentication. A public or enquiry-only site, or one that declares agents must not act, is outside scope.
Why it matters
Lets an agent locate the authorization server responsible for a protected resource without prior knowledge.
Recommendation
Add /.well-known/oauth-protected-resource per RFC 9728 with resource and authorization_servers.
Scoring
Not included in scoring: not verified checks carry no points. NOT VERIFIED means ARC could not reach a conclusion; it is not a failure.
Agent authority and limits are evidenced
agent_authority_boundaries_evidenced
NOT VERIFIED An authenticated or consequential surface was established (commerce (cart and checkout)), but the business has not declared whether agents are meant to act on it. No machine-readable statement of agent limits was found. Whether one is needed depends on intent the business has not declared; a human-only surface is a valid design. Declaring the intended agent policy makes this assessable.
Next: Decide what an agent may and may not do on this business (read, prepare, act, commit) and publish it where an agent will find it: OAuth scopes, MCP tool annotations (readOnlyHint/destructiveHint) or an agent-card security requirement. If the intent is that agents must not act, state that and keep the human-confirmation control in place -- no new capability is required.
In plain terms
What an AI agent may do on your behalf is discoverable
What it tests
Where an agent-facing or consequential surface exists, checks whether anything machine-readable states what an agent may do and where its authority ends: OAuth scopes, MCP tool read-only/destructive annotations, an agent-card security requirement. It does not reward having a protocol -- an interface that publishes no limits is NEEDS ATTENTION, a business that declared agents must not act is Not applicable, and an unestablished surface is NOT VERIFIED.
Standard
none -- protocol-neutral; evidence channels include RFC 8414/9728 scopes, MCP tool annotations and A2A security schemes
How ARC checks it
Fetches the content and parses it against the expected structure
What ARC attempted
ARC ran this check as defined (Where an agent-facing or consequential surface exists, checks whether anything machine-readable states what an agent may do and where its authority ends: OAuth scopes, MCP tool read-only/destructive annotations, an agent-card security requirement. It does not reward having a protocol -- an interface that publishes no limits is NEEDS ATTENTION, a business that declared agents must not act is Not applicable, and an unestablished surface is NOT VERIFIED.) and recorded: An authenticated or consequential surface was established (commerce (cart and checkout)), but the business has not declared whether agents are meant to act on it. No machine-readable statement of agent limits was found. Whether one is needed depends on intent the business has not declared; a human-only surface is a valid design. Declaring the intended agent policy makes this assessable.
Why it could not be verified
Business surface or intent not established.
In terms of the business
An action surface exists, but the business has not declared whether agents are meant to act on it.
What would resolve it
Declaring whether, and how, agents are meant to act on this business (the intended agent policy), or a reassessment once the surface can be read, would resolve this.
Applicability
Applicable. Applies only when the business surface ARC established includes an authenticated or consequential action surface and the business intends agents to act on it (declared), or an agent-facing interface is published or demonstrably requires authentication. A public or enquiry-only site, or one that declares agents must not act, is outside scope.
Why it matters
An agent can only follow the rules it can discover. Where the business has intended limits (for example human confirmation before purchase) but nothing an agent can read states them, the limits depend on every agent guessing correctly.
Recommendation
Decide what an agent may and may not do on this business (read, prepare, act, commit) and publish it where an agent will find it: OAuth scopes, MCP tool annotations (readOnlyHint/destructiveHint) or an agent-card security requirement. If the intent is that agents must not act, state that and keep the human-confirmation control in place -- no new capability is required.
Scoring
Not included in scoring: not verified checks carry no points. NOT VERIFIED means ARC could not reach a conclusion; it is not a failure.

Conversion & Agentic Commerce3 checks

CHECK RESULT EVIDENCE RECORDED BY ARC
Clear conversion action is visible
clear_conversion_action_visible
PASS Action language/link detected
Next: Add descriptive links or buttons for contact, booking, quote or purchase actions.
What it tests
The homepage's text or links contain contact/book/buy/order/quote/signup/schedule language.
Standard
none — text heuristic
Why this result
The evidence ARC recorded satisfies the condition this check looks for. Action language/link detected.
Scoring
Included in scoring.
Pricing or offer context is visible
pricing_offer_context_visible
PASS Pricing or offer language detected
Next: If the missing pricing/offer language is not a deliberate sales-led choice, publish clear, current offer context suitable for prospective customers.
What it tests
The homepage's text contains 'pricing', 'price', or 'offer' language.
Standard
none — text heuristic
Why this result
The evidence ARC recorded satisfies the condition this check looks for. Pricing or offer language detected.
Scoring
Included in scoring.
Emerging agentic-commerce protocol signals
emerging_commerce_protocol_signals
NOT APPLICABLE No emerging agentic-commerce protocol signal was found (not required for a typical business). This is an informational signal and is not scored; its absence is not a defect.
Next: Only relevant if agent-executed payments are part of the business model; not required today.
In plain terms
Emerging agent-payment protocols (if relevant)
What it tests
Detects publicly documented support for x402, Universal Commerce Protocol, Agentic Commerce Protocol, AP2, or Machine Payments Protocol. Informational only (scoring_weight 0): it moves no score in either direction -- support for a payment protocol is evidence of a channel, not of readiness.
Standard
x402 / UCP / ACP / AP2 / Machine Payments Protocol (all emerging, non-standardized)
How ARC checks it
Looks for a published descriptor; presence alone does not prove behaviour
Why ARC treated it as outside scope
Informational signal: it is evidence of a channel, not of readiness, so it carries no points either way. ARC recorded: No emerging agentic-commerce protocol signal was found (not required for a typical business). This is an informational signal and is not scored; its absence is not a defect.
What makes it applicable
Applies only when the business supports online transactions or agent-executed commerce.
Why it matters
Only material for businesses whose model actually requires agent-executed payments; premature for most SME sites.
Recommendation
Only relevant if agent-executed payments are part of the business model; not required today.
Scoring
Not included in scoring: not applicable checks carry no points and do not affect the category score.
B

Page sample evidence

The pages ARC fetched for this assessment. 1 of 1 were evaluated.

PAGE TYPE URL STATUS OBSERVATION
homepage https://willow-thread.example/ EVALUATED Invented in-memory HTML; no network collection.
11

Methodology, versions & limitations

ASSESSMENT RECORD
REPORT ID
SAMPLE-ARC-REPORT-FICTITIOUS
SCAN
SAMPLE-NO-LIVE-SCAN
GENERATED
19 October 2026
CURRENT THROUGH
02 November 2026 — ARC results are treated as current for 14 days; after that a rescan is recommended and this document remains a historical record.
SCANNER / REGISTRY
v2.1.0 / v2.2.0
SCORING / SCHEMA
v2.2.0 / 1.0
COVERAGE CLASS
REPRESENTATIVE — Representative coverage — a bounded, intelligently selected sample of this site's public pages was assessed, not an exhaustive crawl of every page.
HOW THE SCORE IS CALCULATED

Each ARC category is weighted equally. Within a category, a check's contribution reflects its registry scoring weight, scaled down for conditional and emerging-informational maturity checks. REACH and CAPABILITY pillar scores are reported separately, never blended beyond the overall score. Severity is a separate axis from points and drives remediation priority. Not verified and Not applicable checks are excluded from scoring entirely.

LIMITATIONS

Next steps

This assessment is a snapshot with an evidence trail. Every finding carries an ARC test ID, so the same tests can be re-run after remediation to verify the change against the criteria used here.

01 Review the roadmap with your technical owner 8 prioritised opportunities, each with its prerequisites and the ARC tests it is verified against.
02 Book a scope review 8 items require a scope review before duration and price can be confirmed. Pricing to be confirmed following scope review.
03 Complete operator verification 4 advanced checks require live operator verification. Results are appended to this report as a new version when recorded.
04 Re-test after changes A new ARC scan re-runs the same registry (v2.2.0) so movement is measured, not asserted.
CLARITY. EVIDENCE. ACTION. Hoshiro Labs — Evidence for the agentic web
SAMPLE-ARC-REPORT-FICTITIOUS · 19 October 2026