The agent fetched the homepage and English page directly (both URLs typed from memory, not surfaced by the site) and assembled a thorough account of the company's services, claimed track record, and gaps. The site was readable and its content was clear, but it lacked pricing, competitor comparison, and any quote process, so the 'how it's different' and 'how it's priced' parts of the task could only be partially answered.

• ›Homepage and English page were fetchable and carried the core service description, phases, and claimed figures in plain text, so the core answer came from site content.
• ›No pricing, quote-request process, or competitor comparison exists on the site; differentiation is only generic self-description, leaving two of the four asked dimensions unresolved.
• ›Project list contradicts the '30 completed' claim (37 entries, several dated 2026, some concerts), a data-consistency issue the agent had to flag rather than resolve.
• ›Contact emails use capacityexpo.com while the site lives on workers.dev, an inconsistency that makes the authoritative domain ambiguous.
• ›Case-study project pages were linked but never opened, so outcomes and scope for the claimed portfolio remain unverified.