Agent successfully gathered and synthesized the core business model, pricing, and positioning from three pages of the site, but identified significant gaps in performance data, legal clarity, and feature consistency that the site does not resolve. Navigation was direct and the site's structure was straightforward; the friction came from incomplete or ambiguous content rather than broken links.

• ›Pricing is clearly stated in absolute terms (€/month and per-ad costs), but the homepage's 'démarre à' wording for Scale creates a false entry-price signal — the site itself doesn't reconcile this until the comparison page, forcing the agent to compute and clarify per-ad rates.
• ›The portfolio page shows only unsolicited concepts, not client case studies with performance metrics, campaign dates, or results — the site explicitly disclaims this ('Concepts non commandés'), leaving no way for a prospect to validate claims about effectiveness.
• ›Guarantees and cancellation terms are partially opaque: only the Lot test carries a money-back guarantee; subscriptions are stated as 'Sans engagement' but refund/cancellation detail is relegated to the CGV (Terms), which the agent could not fetch — site does not expose critical commercial terms at the product level.
• ›Feature availability across tiers is inconsistently presented: format exclusions (4:5 missing from Essentiel, 9:16 missing from Essentiel and Croissance) and monitoring frequency (Essentiel's frequency is never stated) require cross-referencing multiple sections; no unified feature matrix is published.
• ›The 48-hour delivery guarantee is stated repeatedly but never explained mechanically — no detail on batch cut-off times, handling of late revisions, or what 'non-launchable' means in practice, so the agent could not assess feasibility or risk.