The agent retrieved core information about the registry's function, audience, and free patient offering from three accessible pages, but could not access the practices pricing page (HTTP 406) and had to assemble a partial answer about practice tiers from inferred details and a robots-adjacent llms.txt file. The site's key pages are fetchable, but operator identity, practice pricing, and some verification methods remain obscured.

• ›Step [0] (homepage) provided the primary mission statement and scope, but downplayed that practice listings have paid tiers — this detail only surfaced fully in step [3] (llms.txt), a file intended for AI systems, not end users.
• ›Step [2] (/about) supplied verification methodology (NPI, state board checks, Google data sources) and clarified that Featured/Premium tiers are a revenue model, but did not name an operator or provide contact details beyond a contact form.
• ›Step [3] (llms.txt) was the only source that explicitly disclosed practice tier names and their features (Featured = one of three city page spots; Premium = expansion to surrounding towns). The main site and /about did not fully explain these; the agent had to cite a technical metadata file as evidence.
• ›Steps [1] and [4] (/for-practices and /register) returned HTTP 406, blocking direct access to practice pricing and signup — the agent could only infer from indirect sources that these pages exist but could not confirm current prices or terms.
• ›The agent noted inconsistencies (4,706+ vs. blank practice count; 50 vs. 51 states) and vague claims ('typically responds within 24 hrs', 4.8★ rating) that lack sourcing — these were retrieved from the homepage but not substantiated by any page in the trajectory.