AI Readiness Assessment
https://sitemorse.com
Governancestage 2 · 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 · 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.
- The outside sources this page offers as support did not answer when they were asked for, so what the page claims is left resting on material that does not come back. In a regulated setting, where a link is carrying a figure or a required statement, that is the difference between a claim that is evidenced and one that is merely asserted.1 page
- With no preferred address stated, duplicate copies compete and the version that ends up cited is arbitrary.1 page
- A skipped level breaks the trail that says which section a passage belongs to, so it is filed under the wrong one.1 page
Where your content could lead an AI system to state something incorrect. Only direct routes to a wrong answer count here.
- The site cedes the choice of which address is stored and cited, so links and credit scatter across the variants.pages
- With no preferred address stated, duplicate copies compete and the version that ends up cited is arbitrary.pages
- A skipped level breaks the trail that says which section a passage belongs to, so it is filed under the wrong one.pages
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.
2 of the 4 people are served, and so are the 15 AI systems.
Whether the estate can be reached and read at all: access rules, links, redirects, sitemap, transport.
▸The site as a whole 58.3% Likely 2 out of 22
| Check | Result | Evidence | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DS26 | warning | sitemap is stale: 12 lastmod value(s), newest 2018-05-30 (2994 days ago) | |||||||||
What we check Whether the sitemap carries last-modified dates, and how old the most recent of them is. What good looks like The sitemap carries recent last-modified dates. Why it matters Absent or stale dates leave the age of the content unstated, so fresh pages read as no newer than old ones. What we found on this page sitemap is stale: 12 lastmod value(s), newest 2018-05-30 (2994 days ago) The evidence, taken from the page as served The dates this site's sitemap records
The sitemap was read for the date each address records for itself.
| |||||||||||
| DS16 | fail | 1 URL group(s) are reachable under more than one form (case, trailing slash, or query variants) | |||||||||
What we check The same page served at several addresses, varying by capitals, slashes or query strings. What good looks like Each page is served at a single address, not several varying by capitals, slashes or query strings. Why it matters The site cedes the choice of which address is stored and cited, so links and credit scatter across the variants. What we found on this page 1 URL group(s) are reachable under more than one form (case, trailing slash, or query variants) The evidence, taken from the page as served The URLs that serve the same page under more than one form
Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: each page is served at a single address, not several varying by capitals, slashes or query strings. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||
Passing checks are omitted here; the full record is in the exports.
The highest-priority pages, chosen from the site's own signals of importance.
▸https://sitemorse.com 51.2% Likely 10 out of 42
| Check | Result | Evidence | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DS17 | fail | the page states no preferred address for itself, so duplicate copies compete to be the one cited | |||||||||||||
What we check Each page names one preferred address for itself, its canonical link. What good looks like Each page names one preferred address for itself. Why it matters With no preferred address stated, duplicate copies compete and the version that ends up cited is arbitrary. What we found on this page the page states no preferred address for itself, so duplicate copies compete to be the one cited The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The head of the page was read for a tag naming the page's preferred address. <head> <meta charset="utf-8"/> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1"/> <meta name="description" content=" Sitemorse checks your content against thousands of things, including accessibility, brand and SEO tests, ensuring it is compliant and consistent. "/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="/static/images/favicon.ico"/> <title> Sitemorse | Home </title> <meta name="google-site-verification" content="94abfi58lWwxp3dXaSxdlf_2MIQz0eDRs6cyEOT3M7Q"/> <meta property="og:title" content=" Sitemorse | Home "/> <meta property="og:image" content="https://sitemorse.com/static/images/logo-1200x627.png"/> <meta property="og:description" content=" Sitemorse checks your content against thousands of things, including accessibility, brand and SEO tests, ensuring it is compliant and consistent. "/> <meta property="og:url" content="https://sitemorse.com/"/> <meta property="og:type" content="website"/> <link href="/static/css/bootstrap.min.css" rel="stylesheet"/> <link href="/static/css/font-awesome.css" rel="stylesheet"/> <link href="/static/css/owl.carousel.min.css" rel="stylesheet"/> <link href=… Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: each page names one preferred address for itself. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||||||
| CT09 | fail | 2 skipped heading level(s) in document order | |||||||||||||
What we check Heading levels step down one at a time, rather than jumping from an H2 straight to an H5. What good looks like Heading levels step down one at a time, without jumping a level. Why it matters A skipped level breaks the trail that says which section a passage belongs to, so it is filed under the wrong one. What we found on this page 2 skipped heading level(s) in document order The evidence, taken from the page as served The page's heading outline, in document order (a jump in level is marked)
H1 Warning H1 Contact Sitemorse H2 How can we help you? H3 Thank you H3 Apologies H1 Please verify yourself H1 Page check error H3 There seems to have been a problem in checking the page. level jumped H1 (no text) H3 (no text) level jumped H1 Maintaining your content in the most efficient way.
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: heading levels step down one at a time, without jumping a level. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||||||
| CT11 | warning | 6 H1s (informational; not an error per Google) | |||||||||||||
What we check More than one main heading on the page, recorded for information rather than marked as a fault. What good looks like The page carries one main heading rather than several. Why it matters Multiple H1s are documented by Google as harmless, so this is noted for the record and barely weighted. What we found on this page 6 H1s (informational; not an error per Google) The evidence, taken from the page as served The multiple H1 headings, as served
<h1>Warning</h1> <h1>Contact Sitemorse</h1> <h1>Please verify yourself</h1> <h1>Page check error</h1> <h1 id="modal-promo-h1"/> <h1>Maintaining your content in the most efficient way.</h1> | |||||||||||||||
| CT16 | warning | the page carries no structured data block stating what it is (not required; a hygiene signal) | |||||||||||||
What we check The page carries structured data, the machine-readable summary of what it describes. What good looks like The page carries structured data summarising what it describes. Why it matters Vendors document this as optional rather than required, so its absence is a small forfeit and no more. What we found on this page the page carries no structured data block stating what it is (not required; a hygiene signal) The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The page was read for a structured data block describing what the page is. <head> <meta charset="utf-8"/> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1"/> <meta name="description" content=" Sitemorse checks your content against thousands of things, including accessibility, brand and SEO tests, ensuring it is compliant and consistent. "/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="/static/images/favicon.ico"/> <title> Sitemorse | Home </title> <meta name="google-site-verification" content="94abfi58lWwxp3dXaSxdlf_2MIQz0eDRs6cyEOT3M7Q"/> <meta property="og:title" content=" Sitemorse | Home "/> <meta property="og:image" content="https://sitemorse.com/static/images/logo-1200x627.png"/> <meta property="og:description" content=" Sitemorse checks your content against thousands of things, including accessibility, brand and SEO tests, ensuring it is compliant and consistent. "/> <meta property="og:url" content="https://sitemorse.com/"/> <meta property="og:type" content="website"/> <link href="/static/css/bootstrap.min.css" rel="stylesheet"/> <link href="/static/css/font-awesome.css" rel="stylesheet"/> <link href="/static/css/owl.carousel.min.css" rel="stylesheet"/> <link href=… | |||||||||||||||
| CT04 | warning | the page shows the year 2026 in its text, but nothing on the page states it as the date of the content | |||||||||||||
What we check The page carries a date, ideally written into the markup rather than sitting only in the text. What good looks like The page carries a date, ideally written into the markup rather than sitting only in the text. Why it matters An undated page gives nothing to weigh its age against, so old and new material are treated alike. What we found on this page the page shows the year 2026 in its text, but nothing on the page states it as the date of the content The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The head of the page was read for a tag stating the date of the content. The year shown above was found in the page's own text. <head> <meta charset="utf-8"/> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1"/> <meta name="description" content=" Sitemorse checks your content against thousands of things, including accessibility, brand and SEO tests, ensuring it is compliant and consistent. "/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="/static/images/favicon.ico"/> <title> Sitemorse | Home </title> <meta name="google-site-verification" content="94abfi58lWwxp3dXaSxdlf_2MIQz0eDRs6cyEOT3M7Q"/> <meta property="og:title" content=" Sitemorse | Home "/> <meta property="og:image" content="https://sitemorse.com/static/images/logo-1200x627.png"/> <meta property="og:description" content=" Sitemorse checks your content against thousands of things, including accessibility, brand and SEO tests, ensuring it is compliant and consistent. "/> <meta property="og:url" content="https://sitemorse.com/"/> <meta property="og:type" content="website"/> <link href="/static/css/bootstrap.min.css" rel="stylesheet"/> <link href="/static/css/font-awesome.css" rel="stylesheet"/> <link href="/static/css/owl.carousel.min.css" rel="stylesheet"/> <link href=… | |||||||||||||||
| AJ07 | warning | 3 required field(s) have no tie in the page's code between the field and its error message, so which field an error belongs to rests on layout alonemessage) | |||||||||||||
What we check Whether required form fields are linked in the markup to the error messages about them. What good looks like Each required field is tied in the markup to the message that describes its error. Why it matters An error message sits on the page with nothing tying it to the field it concerns, so the correction has no anchor. What we found on this page 3 required field(s) have no tie in the page's code between the field and its error message, so which field an error belongs to rests on layout alonemessage) The evidence, taken from the page as served The required fields with no error association, as served
<input type="text" class="form-control" id="i-name" required="" name="name" placeholder="Name"/> <input type="email" class="form-control" id="i-email" required="" name="email" placeholder="Email"/> <textarea class="form-control" id="i-howhelp" rows="3" placeholder="Is there any way can we help you?" name="message" required=""/> | |||||||||||||||
| AJ05 | warning | no site-search control detected on this page | |||||||||||||
What we check Whether a search box for the site is present in the page as it is served. What good looks like A search box is present in the served markup, so the site's own content can be queried directly. Why it matters With no search box on the page, its links are the only route from here into the rest of the site. What we found on this page no site-search control detected on this page The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The page was read for a search box: a search form, a control named for search, or a box labelled as one. <head> <meta charset="utf-8"/> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1"/> <meta name="description" content=" Sitemorse checks your content against thousands of things, including accessibility, brand and SEO tests, ensuring it is compliant and consistent. "/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="/static/images/favicon.ico"/> <title> Sitemorse | Home </title> <meta name="google-site-verification" content="94abfi58lWwxp3dXaSxdlf_2MIQz0eDRs6cyEOT3M7Q"/> <meta property="og:title" content=" Sitemorse | Home "/> <meta property="og:image" content="https://sitemorse.com/static/images/logo-1200x627.png"/> <meta property="og:description" content=" Sitemorse checks your content against thousands of things, including accessibility, brand and SEO tests, ensuring it is compliant and consistent. "/> <meta property="og:url" content="https://sitemorse.com/"/> <meta property="og:type" content="website"/> <link href="/static/css/bootstrap.min.css" rel="stylesheet"/> <link href="/static/css/font-awesome.css" rel="stylesheet"/> <link href="/static/css/owl.carousel.min.css" rel="stylesheet"/> <link href=… | |||||||||||||||
| MS10 | fail | the heading structure skips a level in 2 place(s), so the order does not follow | |||||||||||||
What we check A page's headings start at the top level and step down without skipping a level. What good looks like The page's headings start at the top level and step down without skipping a level. Why it matters Content under a skipped level has no clear parent section, so structure taken from the page misplaces its text. What we found on this page the heading structure skips a level in 2 place(s), so the order does not follow The evidence, taken from the page as served The page's heading outline, in document order (a jump in level is marked)
H1 Warning H1 Contact Sitemorse H2 How can we help you? H3 Thank you H3 Apologies H1 Please verify yourself H1 Page check error H3 There seems to have been a problem in checking the page. level jumped H1 (no text) H3 (no text) level jumped H1 Maintaining your content in the most efficient way.
Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: the page's headings start at the top level and step down without skipping a level. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||||||
| MS14 | fail | 1 video(s) on the page with no captions on the video and no written transcript on the page: nothing spoken is available as text in any form | |||||||||||||
What we check Whether each video carries captions of its own, timed text on the video itself, judged together with whether the page holds a written transcript. What good looks like Captions carried on the video. A WARNING means the video has no captions but a written transcript on the page holds the words. A FAIL means neither exists, so nothing spoken is available as text in any form; that total absence is marked here once, not spread across two findings. Why it matters Spoken content that exists only as sound is invisible to a reader, human or machine: nothing said in the video can be found, read or quoted. What we found on this page 1 video(s) on the page with no captions on the video and no written transcript on the page: nothing spoken is available as text in any form The evidence, taken from the page as served Each video on the page, as served: its code, source file and caption track
No caption track on the video and no transcript link on the page. <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/YDPPW6i-ne4" title="YouTube video player" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen=""/> 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: captions carried on the video. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||||||
| DS28 | fail | one link to sources on other sites was refused when it was checked. The page is still published, but the other site turns away requests that do not come from a person using a browser. It is listed in the view | |||||||||||||
What we check For a single page, the share of its links to OTHER sites, sampled, that lead nowhere. The site's own links are assessed separately. What good looks like The page's references to other sites open for any reader. Where one refuses or has gone, the page carries the fact itself, shows the reference as plain text rather than as a link, or points to a source that answers. Why it matters The outside sources this page offers as support did not answer when they were asked for, so what the page claims is left resting on material that does not come back. In a regulated setting, where a link is carrying a figure or a required statement, that is the difference between a claim that is evidenced and one that is merely asserted. What we found on this page one link to sources on other sites was refused when it was checked. The page is still published, but the other site turns away requests that do not come from a person using a browser. It is listed in the view The evidence, taken from the page as served The external links checked on this page, with the status each returned
A link that did not open appears here in two forms. A DEAD link points at a page that has gone. A REFUSED link points at a page that is still published, but the other site turns away requests that do not come from a person using a browser, so our request was declined. Both land in the same place: the material this page offers as its support did not come back when it was asked for. The consequence is not a matter of tidiness. Where a link carries the weight of a claim, a figure, a policy or a regulatory statement, and the target does not open, the support behind that claim is missing at the moment it is needed. Three things follow, and each of them costs the organisation. The same fact gets taken from somewhere else, which hands a third party control of how the claim is worded. Or the claim is treated as unsupported and set aside. Or an answer is drawn from what remains on the page, and a partial account is presented as a complete one. A refused link is the worst of the three, because the page still reads as though the evidence sits one step away, so the gap is invisible and the answer carries false confidence. A refusal by another site is still this site's matter to resolve, because this site chose to rest a claim on it. Three practical ways close it. Carry the fact being relied on in the page's own words, so the claim stands without the visit. Keep the reference but stop making it a link, showing the address as plain text, so nothing promises a route that does not open. Or point to a source that answers any reader. Where the reference has to stay live, say beside it what a reader will meet, so no one is sent to a closed door without warning.
Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: the page's references to other sites open for any reader. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 15 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. | |||||||||||||||
No PDF documents were part of this assessment.
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. 1 pages were assessed, selected from 3 reviewed using the site's own signals of importance (its navigation, homepage links, most-linked pages, sitemap, and any llms.txt file), and the first 0 PDF documents found were assessed separately. The industry in the header is classified from the site's own content. The traffic classification comes from a recognised top-sites list or a connected traffic provider; it reads NA when the domain is not connected to a traffic source.
Header identity signals. The regulated sector and listed company values are inferred from the same crawled content, and shown here so the header can stay to the answer alone. Regulated sector reads “None found”: no regulator statements, and the established sector carries no statutory regulator. Listed company reads “Not established”: no clear public-listing indicators in the sampled pages.
AI readiness is the weighted share of checks that passed, reported separately for pages and for PDF documents because each is reached and corrected differently. Grade A checks decide whether content can be reached and read at all; grade B whether it is understood correctly; grade C support reliability. A measured score is scaled into a ceiling when an access gate binds it (for example the site blocking AI crawlers at its edge): content that cannot be reached is not partially ready. Scores never read exactly 25, 50, 75 or 100, because those are buckets, not measurements.
Likelihood of misinformation is a band, given as a worst case (the highest any single item or estate-wide finding reaches) and a typical position across the pages or documents. Only checks whose failure is a direct route to a wrong answer carry a band; the rest affect readiness only.
| Band | Range | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Likely zero | 0-5% | No failing misinformation-bearing checks. |
| Very little | 6-25% | Unlikely to cause wrong information. |
| Likely | 26-50% | Could contribute to wrong information in some cases. |
| Very likely | 51-75% | A real and common route to wrong information. |
| Extremely likely | 76-100% | A frequent and direct cause of wrong information. |
Of the register's 187 checks, 64 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
