AIEO

Inside the work · owned-site specimen

A high score can still hide the wrong offer.

Our own public scan returned 100/100. A closer reading found information a buyer needed us to put right. Here is the original evidence and a dated check of what changed.

See the evidenceDownload the specimen

9 September 2026 · aieo.fyi

Real observations.
Visible coverage.

This is a partial audit specimen of our own website. It demonstrates the content review, evidence record and action plan you can inspect before commissioning work.

Consumer AI answers have not been captured in this specimen. The five-platform matrix below is a test plan, with no citation rate or competitor result claimed.

Completed
Three returned HTML pages, three public text files, one proposed URL returning 404, one public scan and a review of the prepared site changes.
To complete
Consumer answers across five platforms, competitor answer comparison, whole-site schema coverage and any agreed analytics review.
Change status
The 9 September record describes prepared changes. A separate 25 September check confirms the updated public pricing page and audit service page; it does not establish policy changes or outcomes.

This 9 September specimen remains a historical record. A separate 25 September technical self-scan found 100/100 across five public pages, while also reporting unscored security and entity warnings. It does not complete the five-platform observations or measure business results.

The observation that changed the priority

Readable is only the start.

The pricing page passed the scanner’s title and description checks. Comparing its meaning with the approved offer showed a different problem.

AIEO / Evidence receipt

Did our pricing page describe the offer we could actually provide?

Observed

01 / Source

What was observed

The live pricing title referred to Retainer Plans, and its description and pricing.md advertised an ongoing retainer. The approved current offer ladder is Free / from £295 / custom quote.

Finding
The technical title and description checks passed, but the published words described an outdated retainer offer.
Limit
No consumer AI answer was captured, so this does not show whether an answer repeated that offer. The scanner score is not a citation or commercial result.
Change
Correct the offer wording across the page, metadata and pricing.md. A 25 September public check confirmed the page title and offer; pricing.md was not independently re-fetched.
Repeat check
Re-fetch the public page and pricing.md together, compare the service scope and test the email draft. Observe platform answers separately.

Partial owned-site specimen. Consumer AI answer captures: 0 of 15 planned.

Public snapshot · 9 September

AIEO Pricing: Free Scan, Audit and Retainer Plans | AIEO

The title, description and pricing.md referred to an ongoing retainer outside the current approved offer ladder.

Source URL: aieo.fyi/pricing/
Prepared site correction · 9 September

AIEO Pricing | Free SEO Check, AI Audit and Strategy

Free health check. AI visibility audit from £295. Full strategy by custom quote. One consistent offer, explained across the relevant pages.

Historical proposal. Full strategy is fully booked now; see current availability.

At that date, release and public after-check were still required
A dated content comparison, not a search-result screenshot. This preserves the offer and release status recorded on 9 September; the 25 September public-page check above records what changed. See live pricing and availability for later updates. The downloadable record retains the observations and response hashes.

Why we read beyond the score

A length check cannot establish that a price or service is current. Google recommends descriptive, concise titles and sets no fixed title character limit. It may generate a different title for a search result. Google’s title guidance.

For its AI search features, Google requires an indexed page eligible for a Search snippet, with no extra AI file or special schema requirement. Eligibility still does not guarantee selection. Google’s AI features guidance.

The action plan

Three findings.
A reason for each next step.

Every recommendation keeps its source and its acceptance check. Priority here is editorial judgement about this business, rather than extra points in the scanner.

First

Make the published offer match the business.

Observed
The live pricing title referred to Retainer Plans, and its description and pricing.md advertised an ongoing retainer. The approved current offer ladder is Free / from £295 / custom quote.
Why it matters
A technical pass can coexist with out-of-date commercial information. A buyer or an answer system reading that source could receive the wrong offer. No AI answer was captured to establish whether this happened.
Proposed work
Review and release the already-prepared consistent offer copy across the page, metadata and pricing.md. Keep the paid audit’s included 30-minute discussion.
Check afterwards
After an authorised release, fetch the public page and pricing.md again, compare the advertised scope, and test the email link. Observe platform answers separately.

9 September status: Correction prepared in the site candidate; live correction not verified.

25 September public check: The pricing page now shows the corrected title and current offer ladder. The plain-text pricing.md file was not independently re-fetched in this check.

Sources: /pricing/ · /pricing.md

Next

Give the audit a page someone can evaluate.

Observed
The intended AI-visibility service URL returned HTTP 404. A dedicated service page exists in the reviewed local candidate.
Why it matters
The proposed public page was not available at the observation time. This does not establish that an existing live link was broken, or that Google had indexed or rejected the URL.
Proposed work
Include the dedicated audit explanation in the release candidate, with deliverables, the five named platforms, agreed scope and an email next step.
Check afterwards
After an authorised release, confirm a successful page response, correct canonical, readable scope and working enquiry links.

9 September status: Page prepared in the site candidate; publication not verified.

25 September public check: The audit service URL now loads and explains the five-platform service and enquiry route.

Sources: /services/ai-visibility/

Decision

Make search and training choices explicit.

Observed
The served robots.txt contained a Cloudflare-managed block with ai-train=no and GPTBot Disallow: /, followed by custom GPTBot Allow: /. The served llms.txt said training was permitted.
Why it matters
The delivered declarations need a consistent operator decision. This text comparison does not prove which requests a firewall or crawler allowed, and training permission is separate from search access.
Proposed work
Agree search, training and user-request access deliberately; then reconcile the served policy and explanatory text. Do not change access merely to gain scan points.
Check afterwards
Re-fetch the served files after an agreed change; assess effective crawler rules and any relevant hosting controls independently.

9 September status: Policy decision and implementation review required.

Sources: /robots.txt · /llms.txt

Search access and training access are separate decisions. OpenAI documents OAI-SearchBot for ChatGPT search and GPTBot for potential training use, with independent settings. OpenAI’s crawler documentation.

The next layer of evidence

Then, observe the answers.

These are proposed questions for this example. A paid audit agrees its questions, page coverage and competitors before testing. The specimen’s limited coverage does not replace that scope.

  1. Q1 · Branded fact check

    What does AIEO offer, and how much does its AI visibility audit cost?

    Check whether a returned answer describes the actual offer and links to a current source.
  2. Q2 · Buyer evaluation

    What should an AI visibility audit include for a UK service business with an existing website?

    Inspect the advice and cited sources for a question a prospective customer may ask.
  3. Q3 · Provider discovery

    Which providers help UK service businesses improve their visibility in AI search answers?

    Record mentions and cited domains in a category-level answer, without inserting AIEO into the question.

Consumer answer captures: 0 of 15 planned. No visibility percentage calculated.

PlatformSurface to recordThis specimen
ChatGPTConsumer ChatGPT with search state recordedNot captured
PerplexityConsumer Perplexity with selected search mode recordedNot captured
Google AI OverviewsGoogle Search; whether an AI Overview appears is recordedNot captured
GeminiConsumer Gemini with model/search state recordedNot captured
Microsoft CopilotConsumer Copilot with mode recordedNot captured

A completed capture records the exact question, date, platform, mode, account/language/location context, answer and cited URLs. A mention and a link to your website are different observations. An unavailable answer stays unavailable, rather than becoming a failed citation test.

How we would review this question set

Inspect each returned answer for factual accuracy and source links. Compare providers actually mentioned with the agreed comparison set. Keep the original evidence and repeat a defined subset if variation matters. For Google Search, record whether an AI Overview appeared. Consumer interfaces and API responses are labelled separately.

The questions here are a proposed owned-site test, not a promise that these exact questions suit every business. Search clicks and qualified enquiries require separate, comparable observations.

Keep the evidence.
Question the method.

The Markdown report contains the findings, capture plan and response record. JSON includes selected metadata and hashes identifying the captured responses.

Download report · MarkdownDownload evidence · JSON

Brief your own audit.

Tell us which website and business question you want investigated. This prepares a draft you can inspect and copy into your usual email service.

Submitting this form makes no request to your website or our inbox. Send the email yourself when you are ready. How enquiries are handled.

The specimen’s findings concern AIEO. They are not findings about your website.