The agent read the homepage, how-it-works page, and broker agreement, then supplemented with a search that surfaced an external listing and industry fee context. The site was reasonably navigable and linked its legal terms, but its homepage claims were contradicted by the agreement and key terms were only in fine print.

• ›The homepage advertised '20% gross' commission while the broker agreement restricted it to future company-owned sales on a net base, a material mismatch a reader would only catch by reading the legal page.
• ›The how-it-works and broker-agreement pages were fetchable and cited specific payment conditions, making the commission model answerable from site content.
• ›The 'Domain registration rights only' footer phrase was unexplained anywhere on the site, leaving buyer rights ambiguous.
• ›No dedicated pricing or FAQ page existed; the commission calculator was the only pricing surface.
• ›The site did not address competitors, so the 'how it differs' comparison had to come from external industry context rather than the company's own content.