The agent assembled a partial but substantive overview of Runapt by fetching the homepage, pricing, and about pages—all explicitly cited as sources. The site made basic positioning and feature information accessible, but left several key details (refund policy, trial mechanics, founder pricing eligibility, adaptive algorithm details) unexplained or undocumented on these pages, forcing the agent to flag gaps rather than fill them with guesses.

• ›All three fetched pages were content-bearing and directly cited; the agent did not guess or rely on model memory to construct the core narrative (what Runapt does, who it's for, how it's priced). The site surfaced these facts in plain language.
• ›The agent correctly identified multiple unresolved ambiguities—'founder price locked in for life,' trial card requirements, refund terms, readiness-score formula, region availability—and explicitly noted they were not addressed on the pages fetched. This is honest gap-reporting, not hallucination.
• ›The agent did not fetch comparison pages, science/methods pages, or terms of service, but explicitly acknowledged not checking them. This reflects appropriate scope-bounding: it answered what was available on the main paths without pretending to have read the entire site.
• ›Pricing information was region-dependent and delegated to app stores; the site gave euros but not other currencies or a full region list. The agent reported this limitation rather than inferring regional prices from model memory.
• ›The site's own positioning is sparse (no explicit mission statement, no FAQ linked on the about page), leaving the agent to assemble differentiation claims from scattered statements. The site did not surface a clean, structured 'why us' narrative.