The agent assembled a workable overview of EFAP's mission, target audience, and competitive positioning from the site's core pages and search results, but pricing information was deliberately obfuscated behind campus-selection tabs and not fully rendered in fetches. The site surfaces programs and rankings clearly but leaves pricing and direct competitor comparisons to discovery outside its published content.

• ›Pricing is intentionally non-transparent: the financement page requires selecting a campus to display costs, but the fetched response never included actual tuition figures—a pattern suggesting either the page is dynamically rendered or the agent's fetch could not execute JavaScript to populate the form.
• ›Rankings and competitive positioning came directly from site-authored comparison pages ([5]), making EFAP's standing versus CELSA, ISCOM, and SciencesCom verifiable from first-party content rather than external sources.
• ›Core value propositions (30,000 alumni, 90% employment, 30,000 company partnerships, 15 campuses, 17 MBA specializations) were published on the homepage [0] and admission page [1], making those claims easily retrievable.
• ›The agent successfully cited its sources in the final response, including both site URLs and search result links, meeting transparency requirements despite the incomplete pricing disclosure.
• ›Specific program structures (year-by-year breakdown, international campus program availability) were not fetched or explicitly available in the trajectories, leaving gaps the agent flagged as 'confusing or missing'—an honest acknowledgment of what the site did not surface rather than a retrieval failure.