Agent successfully assembled a comprehensive explanation of FinTrace's service, target users, and engagement model by fetching three core pages (homepage, engagement, about). The site was navigable and content-bearing, but deliberately withholded specific pricing figures and data-handling details; the agent clearly identified these gaps without hallucinating numbers or false claims.

• ›All three fetched pages were directly cited in the final response sources and contained substantive content; no search results were used. The site is structured for direct navigation (homepage → engagement/about links).
• ›Pricing is strategically opaque: the engagement page states methodology ('page count and scope, not hours') but publishes no fee ranges or example quotes. The agent correctly reported this absence rather than inferring numbers.
• ›The site makes strong claims ('no hallucination risk,' '100% of findings cited,' 'stands up in court') with no supporting methodology, error rates, or independent validation. The agent identified this as a credibility gap and flagged it explicitly.
• ›Data handling, security, and jurisdiction are conspicuously absent from the fetched pages. The agent inferred 'Australia-wide' from contextual hints (strata plan references, .au domain) and correctly noted this was not stated on the homepage.
• ›The single testimonial and one worked example were the only client evidence available; the agent correctly noted these as limited and anecdotal rather than treating them as validation.