Agent successfully gathered enough site content to describe Somavedic's product, target audience, pricing tiers, and science backing across 5 page fetches, but the site did not expose a complete single-source price list, full FAQ answers, competitor comparison, or regulatory/safety information, requiring the agent to note gaps explicitly and synthesize from fragments.

• ›Homepage and shop pages list different model sets and prices (Amber on homepage only, Traveller on compare page only), forcing the agent to report a fragmented price list rather than a canonical source.
• ›FAQ page returned only headings without answers, blocking direct answers to medical-device status, electrosensitivity fit, child/pet safety, and placement guidance—agent had to note these as 'not included' rather than retrieve them.
• ›Evidence page contained no specific study citations, methodologies, or sample sizes—only categorical mentions—forcing the agent to rely on the 'how-it-works' page's single cell-culture assay and unexplained ion measurement as the substantive evidence presented.
• ›Product comparison page compared only Somavedic models to each other using undefined criteria ('harmonization level,' 'geopatogenic stress,' 'coherence'), with no competitor or alternative-product comparison, leaving the 'how it differs' answer as 'the site doesn't say.'
• ›Key technical and marketing terms ('harmonization,' 'coherence,' 'structured water,' 'geopatogenic stress') were never defined in measurable units across any fetched page, yet were central to the product's value proposition.