The agent could not fully access getproposa.app's own website due to JavaScript rendering limitations, so it assembled an incomplete picture using web search results and a third-party AppSumo listing. It delivered a plausible overview of Proposa as an AI-assisted proposal platform for freelancers, but explicitly acknowledged gaps in pricing tiers, exact AI capabilities, team limits, and integrations—all critical details for the task. The site's dynamic nature and heavy reliance on client-side rendering made it poorly agent-readable.

• ›Step [31] search results and step [32] (AppSumo page fetch) were the only content-bearing sources used; both were third-party perspectives, not Proposa's own documentation. The getproposa.app homepage itself (steps [1], [4]) returned truncated, non-functional HTML.
• ›The agent had to rely on inferred positioning ('AI-powered', '$25/month base', 'for freelancers') rather than authoritative source material. Pricing details came from search result titles and fragments, not from a canonical pricing page—the /pricing route returned 404 (step [3]).
• ›Multiple review/comparison sites (Capterra [7], G2 [19], TrustRadius [24], Creati.ai [25]) returned 403 Cloudflare blocks, further narrowing available sources. The agent explicitly flagged inability to confirm 'complete pricing structure', 'exact AI capabilities', 'team size limits', and 'integration options'.
• ›The site is fundamentally unnavigable for agents: no structured data (schema.org), no plain-text fallback, no accessible pricing table, and critical pages either 404 or require JavaScript execution. The agent resorted to recommending a live trial as the only way to verify details.