The agent successfully retrieved and synthesized savvia's core positioning, services, pricing model, and stated differentiators from three fetched pages. The site was moderately navigable but incomplete: key pricing and timeline details were absent, some product references (Neety, lab experiments) lacked clear positioning, and location claims were inconsistent; the agent had to flag these gaps explicitly rather than fill them from model memory.

• ›Homepage and manifesto both returned content summaries (in summary form, not verbatim), allowing the agent to extract positioning ('AI is the base. Judgment remains ours.'), three service modes, target segments, and the savvia.md documentation concept—all directly cited in the final response.
• ›Pricing was genuinely sparse on the site: no rates, ranges, or timelines published. The agent correctly reported only what was retrievable (fixed budget, 50/50 split, maintenance as retainer/hours bank, third-party costs on client) rather than inferring market rates from model memory.
• ›Lab and Manifesto pages both returned content when fetched directly (step [2] and [3]), contradicting step [0]'s claim that they showed 'no visible content'—suggesting the fetch tool returned partial summaries initially, then fuller ones on second access. The agent treated this as a fetch issue and moved forward without re-checking.
• ›The agent flagged three unresolved confusions: Neety's status (client vs. product vs. both), the relationship between 'agentic' and 'savvia.md', and inconsistent location claims (Donostia vs. Pamplona/Berlin). None of these were resolved by the three fetches, indicating the site itself lacks clarity.
• ›The site surfaced services, philosophy, and constraints clearly via navigation links, but offered no comparison table, competitor references, or structured pricing—forcing the agent to assemble a coherent pitch from prose pages and acknowledge what was missing rather than speculate.