The agent retrieved a partial but well-structured answer: it successfully extracted what FretGuard does, who it targets, and how it works from the homepage and FAQ, but the site publishes no pricing, competitor comparisons, or verified customer outcomes, forcing the agent to acknowledge explicit gaps rather than filling them from model memory.

• ›The homepage (step [0]) delivered a French-language overview of FretGuard's capabilities, target sectors, and a note that pricing was absent—this set the trajectory and confirmed the primary gap early.
• ›The FAQ (step [1]) added implementation details (import formats, data security, tariff setup procedure, e-invoicing context) but explicitly stated that pricing, free-check terms, and competitor comparisons were not covered, validating the agent's finding.
• ›The 'Pourquoi FretGuard' page (step [2]) provided a concrete audit example and problem statement but confirmed the site contains no direct competitor comparison—the agent correctly noted this as an intentional absence rather than inventing alternatives from model memory.
• ›The site's primary friction point is the absence of a pricing page or model document: the agent found links to FAQ, features, and demos, but no pricing resource existed to fetch, making cost evaluation impossible without a sales conversation.
• ›The agent correctly declined to invent competitor analysis or pricing models despite having general knowledge available; it instead marked these as 'not stated' and 'not named,' showing disciplined separation between site-derived and model-derived claims.