The agent assembled a mostly complete picture of Angling Escapes' business model from three fetched pages, but encountered internal contradictions (deposit timing, cancellation tiers), an incomplete FAQ read, and unverified claims about differentiation. The site was navigable but internally inconsistent and missing per-water detail.

• ›Deposit contradiction: homepage claims 50% due two months before arrival; terms and FAQ say 50% due at booking through Mollie with balance by confirmation date. Agent correctly flagged this but could not resolve it from available pages.
• ›FAQ truncation: the FAQ page is 229k characters; the agent read only the first 100k and noted the limitation, so material answers may exist unread. This is a site design problem (overly long page, not paginated or indexed), not an agent failure.
• ›Cancellation policy overlap: the 50% retention tier lacks a time window in the terms, creating ambiguity with the 7-day free-change window. The agent noted this but the source (terms page) did not resolve it.
• ›Individual water pages not fetched: the agent saw example prices on the homepage and FAQ but did not navigate to actual water listing pages to verify what 'from' prices cover, what's included, or per-water licensing rules. This was within scope but the agent prioritized high-level policy pages.
• ›Site explicitly cites itself: all three fetched pages are the agent's own domain content (homepage, FAQ, terms). No search results or external sources were consulted. The site made no use of structured data, llms.txt, or machine-readable pricing/terms schemas, requiring the agent to parse natural-language HTML.