AI Readiness Assessment
https://www.lsbu.ac.uk
Registered identity from official sources
Listing
Established record held for this organisation · retrieved 2026-07-31 16:53 UTC
Governancestage 2 ยท not assessed yet...more
64 judgements need a named person in the organisation to confirm, because they turn on what you know to be true rather than anything measurement can settle: whether a claim is supported, whether a page is still current, which of two versions is the one to quote. In order, they cover: who is answerable for this content; is it still true today; can each claim be backed; does our published content agree; will the right meaning come across; can someone reach it and act on it. An answer recorded against each, with a name and a date, is what turns published content into governed content.
Visibilitystage 3 ยท not assessed yet...more
Once the foundations are sound and the content is governed, the visibility stage measures how AI systems and agents actually find the estate: which pages they reach, how often, and how the organisation is represented when they answer questions about it, tracked over time. Building visibility on unconfirmed foundations only amplifies whatever is wrong, which is why it comes last.
How much of your content is reachable and readable, rather than blocked, buried or missing. Higher is better.
- No page is reachable by an AI system, so there is nothing on the site to be read, quoted or answered from. pages
Where your content could lead an AI system to state something incorrect. Only direct routes to a wrong answer count here.
- With the organisation's own pages unreadable, anything an AI states about London South Bank University is assembled from directories, news, forums and opinion, with no first-party page to check it against or to correct it.whole estate
AI systems were turned away at the door. A person's browser was served the site normally.
This is an access finding, and it affects AI systems, not visitors. Because the pages cannot be reached by an AI, an answer about the organisation is assembled from third-party sources rather than from the organisation's own site. One caution on the search engines: their own crawlers prove who they are by their network address, and this door challenges the caller rather than the name. The refusal recorded here met our checker's calls made in those names; it is not evidence that the search engines' own crawlers are refused, and their access is validated separately on each assessment.
Anyone asking for this site, a person on a phone or an AI system building an answer, is either let in or turned away, in milliseconds, by machinery most organisations never see. An AI system refused here gets nothing at all: to that system the organisation simply does not answer.
The door changes without notice: a security setting, a network change or a new crawler policy can close it silently. It is measured live on the day of assessment, and it is worth watching continuously rather than once.
People are served; 12 of 15 AI systems are turned away; 3 search crawlers keep a way in.
Whether the estate can be reached and read at all: access rules, links, redirects, sitemap, transport.
▸The site as a whole 1.0% Extremely likely 2 out of 17
| Check | Result | Evidence | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DS01 | fail | the site did not answer for its access-rules file, so nothing states what automated readers may read | |||||||||
What we check The site publishes a robots.txt file and it can be fetched and read. What good looks like The site publishes a robots.txt that can be fetched and read. Why it matters A missing or broken robots file leaves the rules of access undefined, and access decisions then get made without them. What we found on this page the site did not answer for its access-rules file, so nothing states what automated readers may read The evidence, taken from the page as served The access-rules file, as the site answered for it
The address robots.txt was asked for. It is the file a site uses to tell automated readers what they may read.
Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: the site publishes a robots.txt that can be fetched and read. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 5 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide whether content can be reached and read at all, so it carries the heaviest weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||
| DS23 | warning | sitemap.xml not found (status=403); discovery relies on links alone | |||||||||
What we check The site publishes a sitemap at the standard address and it returns successfully. What good looks like The site publishes a sitemap at the standard address and it returns successfully. Why it matters Without one, discovery of the site rests on links alone, so anything poorly linked is easy to miss entirely. What we found on this page sitemap.xml not found (status=403); discovery relies on links alone The evidence, taken from the page as served The sitemap, as the site answered for it
The address sitemap.xml was asked for. It is the file a site uses to list its own pages.
| |||||||||||
Passing checks are omitted here; the full record is in the exports.
No pages could be read on this estate, so none were scored. See the access finding above.
No documents could be reached on this estate.
How the scores work method & bands
This report is Stage 1, Foundations: each automated test the engine can run without human input, so there is a usable result at the first stage. Governance (owner-confirmed truth) and Visibility (how AI agents find the estate) are later stages and are shown greyed above.
What was assessed. 0 pages were assessed, selected from 1 reviewed using the site's own signals of importance (its navigation, homepage links, most-linked pages, sitemap, and any llms.txt file), and the first 0 PDF documents found were assessed separately. The industry in the header is classified from the site's own content. The traffic classification comes from a recognised top-sites list or a connected traffic provider; it reads NA when the domain is not connected to a traffic source.
Header identity signals. The regulated sector and listed company values are inferred from the same crawled content, and shown here so the header can stay to the answer alone. Regulated sector reads “Yes”: a uk accredited academic institution, regulated by the uk's statutory education authorities. Listed company reads “No (not a company with shares)”: no (not a company with shares).
AI readiness is the weighted share of checks that passed, reported separately for pages and for PDF documents because each is reached and corrected differently. Grade A checks decide whether content can be reached and read at all; grade B whether it is understood correctly; grade C support reliability. A measured score is scaled into a ceiling when an access gate binds it (for example the site blocking AI crawlers at its edge): content that cannot be reached is not partially ready. Scores never read exactly 25, 50, 75 or 100, because those are buckets, not measurements.
Likelihood of misinformation is a band, given as a worst case (the highest any single item or estate-wide finding reaches) and a typical position across the pages or documents. Only checks whose failure is a direct route to a wrong answer carry a band; the rest affect readiness only.
| Band | Range | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Likely zero | 0-5% | No failing misinformation-bearing checks. |
| Very little | 6-25% | Unlikely to cause wrong information. |
| Likely | 26-50% | Could contribute to wrong information in some cases. |
| Very likely | 51-75% | A real and common route to wrong information. |
| Extremely likely | 76-100% | A frequent and direct cause of wrong information. |
Of the register's 187 checks, 17 ran automatically in this Foundations stage. 64 are governance questions for the next stage. The remainder need organisation-supplied data or an external service; each check that did not run is listed in the exports.
About us
Built on evidence, not assumptions.
We have been doing this for 25 years. For the last two years, we have been training AI to understand and map AI Readiness (fundamentals, governance, visibility), against our unique dataset of more than 3.7 trillion data points.
Who’s talking about us
