The agent successfully gathered a comprehensive overview of LOCKD's product, pricing, and positioning from three fetched pages (homepage, FAQ, comparison page). The site published core facts in accessible, fetchable form, but inconsistencies in dosage, vitamin formulations, and sugar claims required the agent to flag gaps rather than resolve them.

• ›The homepage and FAQ contained pricing and ingredient data directly; the comparison page ('poznajwroga') was discovered via a link and provided the energy-drink differentiation narrative without external sources.
• ›Dosage contradictions (one shot/day on homepage vs. up to two in FAQ, and 60-shot plans shipped monthly) could not be resolved from the site itself — the agent correctly called this out rather than guessing.
• ›The site made claims about focus and cognitive benefits without citing studies on LOCKD itself; only generic energy-drink systematic reviews were referenced, a gap the agent identified.
• ›Sugar labeling ('no added sugar' vs. 7.7 g per 100 ml) and caffeine concentration (800 mg/l vs. the 150 mg/l under-18 threshold the site cited) exposed internal contradictions the agent had to articulate.
• ›The agent did not fetch product detail pages (/products/lockd-100ml) or refund policy directly, relying on homepage summaries and FAQ; these were flagged as 'not verified,' showing honest attribution of source limits.