Agent successfully gathered comprehensive information about Realberry through web search and a third-party review, since the site itself was rate-limited and inaccessible. The research yielded clear answers on what Realberry does, who it serves, pricing structure, and competitive positioning, though some details like specific expected returns and fee transparency remain incomplete per the agent's own assessment.

• ›Direct site access failed (HTTP 429 rate-limiting), forcing the agent to rely entirely on search results and external review content—no primary source from realberry.com itself was retrieved.
• ›Step [9] (CRE Daily review) was the single most substantive source, providing direct comparison to competitors (CrowdStreet, RealtyMogul) and specific details on asset management scope ($3.4B), sponsor experience, and structural differences—information not surfaced by search snippets alone.
• ›Search results (steps [5], [7], [11]) contained sufficient snippet content to establish the company's identity, accredited-investor-only model, $100K minimum, and asset classes, indicating the site's public positioning is reasonably discoverable via search even if direct fetch fails.
• ›Agent correctly identified three persistent information gaps: specific expected returns, granular fee structures (deferred to individual PPMs), and timelines for accessibility expansion—these gaps reflect genuine site opacity rather than failed navigation, as external sources also lack this detail.
• ›The agent did not attempt to fetch any URLs directly from realberry.com's domain after rate-limiting; all substantive content came from external reviews and search results, making this a wholly indirect understanding of the site's actual presentation.