The agent successfully synthesized what IOquery does, who it serves, and its advertised pricing from three site pages. However, the site itself publishes minimal pricing detail (no agency fees disclosed), and the agent had to assemble a fragmented picture from a homepage, a service page, and a dedicated pricing page that actually contains information the service page didn't—indicating poor information architecture and incomplete disclosure of IOquery's own cost structure.

• ›Step [0] (homepage) provided positioning, target sectors, and service list; it was typed from memory, not discovered via navigation, exposing a gap in site discoverability for new visitors.
• ›Step [3] (/google-ads-prix) revealed minimum media spend (1,000–1,500 €/month) and freelancer/generalist fee ranges, but critically omitted IOquery's own fee structure—the core pricing the task required. The page frames fees as context rather than IOQuery's offer.
• ›The site surfaces pricing across at least three URLs (/services/google-ads, /google-ads-prix, and implied /prix or elsewhere), forcing the agent to follow multiple links to assemble even incomplete information; no single page answers 'what does IOquery cost?'
• ›Step [2] included French FAQ placeholders ('Les réponses aux questions FAQ... ne sont pas visibles') and linked to /google-ads-prix without embedding its content, relying on follow-up navigation the agent proactively performed.
• ›The agent correctly flagged inconsistencies (founding date, case-study currencies, missing contract terms, lack of verification) that arose from actual site content, not model hallucination—indicating the site publishes claims without supporting detail.