The agent retrieved core information about VIT's role, audiences, and 2026-27 fee schedule from the site but could not complete a full comparison to alternatives because VIT does not position itself against competitors and the agent did not search for external context. The site was navigable via clear fee pages, though pricing structure lacked granularity for all registration categories.

• ›Step [2] (homepage) provided a structured overview of VIT's role, sections, and registration categories, but did not list any fees—forcing navigation to a separate fees page.
• ›Step [5] (fees page) contained a complete, machine-readable fee table for 2026-27 with specific amounts in AUD, but did not break down fees by registration category (provisional, full, non-practising, etc.), creating incomplete coverage of the pricing answer.
• ›The agent correctly identified that VIT has no natural alternatives within Victoria (regulatory monopoly) and did not rely on external search or model memory to fill this gap—instead it acknowledged the limitation transparently rather than confabulating.
• ›TLS certificate mismatch on the bare domain forced the agent to self-correct to www subdomain; this friction was minimal because the error message was clear and the redirect was implicit.
• ›The agent did not fetch category-specific registration pages that might have contained per-type fee amounts, treating the task as satisfied after the aggregated fee table rather than exhaustively mapping all permutations.