The agent read the homepage, FAQ, and Sustainable program page, then produced a thorough explanation of BOMA BEST's scope, eligibility, and quote-based pricing while flagging conflicting levels, unsourced statistics, and missing fee figures. The site was navigable and mostly self-describing, but key details (exact prices, level thresholds, BOMA BEST 3.0 and Smart descriptions, the fee calculator) were absent or split across external domains.

• ›The FAQ page was the richest single source, stating eligibility, the certification process, and program structure in fetchable text.
• ›Pricing is deliberately unpublished; the site routes users to a quote button and calculator rather than stating amounts, so the answer on cost stays qualitative.
• ›The homepage's 'Why BOMA BEST' statistics carry no citations and the energy figure refers to a different certification, weakening trust in the marketing claims.
• ›Level naming is inconsistent across pages (FAQ lists five levels, Sustainable page mentions none), leaving the agent unable to confirm how certification tiers apply.
• ›Key artifacts (fee schedule, Field Guide, BOMA BEST 3.0 page, fee calculator) live on separate domains or were not fetched, so the agent could not verify them directly.