Methodology · version 1.0

What the score measures—and what it cannot prove.

ActableSite evaluates observable signals on a public website. The score is a repair-prioritization aid, not a simulation of ChatGPT, a search ranking, or a guarantee of commercial outcomes.

Six questions organize the 15 checks

01

Identity

Can software tell who operates the site, what it offers, and which page is authoritative?

02

Action

Is the intended next step explicit, crawlable, and labeled for its outcome?

03

Decision

Are price, commitment, delivery, audience, and material limits visible before action?

04

Evidence

Are important claims supported by attributable facts, examples, sources, or methodology?

05

Discovery

Do canonical, sitemap, crawler, metadata, and structured-data signals reduce ambiguity?

06

Trust

Can a visitor find contact, identity, privacy, terms, and current-information signals?

How scoring works

Each check has a fixed maximum weight. A clearly present signal earns full points; a partial or ambiguous signal earns roughly half; a missing or blocking signal earns none. The weighted total is normalized to 100.

A80–100Core path is unusually clear
B65–79Useful path with material gaps
C50–64Foundation exists; inference is required
D/F0–49Identity, evidence, or action is blocked

Important limits

  • The scan reads HTML and common public discovery files; it does not manually test every page, workflow, device, or assistive technology.
  • Automated checks cannot prove accessibility, legal compliance, factual truth, search inclusion, citation, recommendation, or revenue impact.
  • llms.txt is an experimental convenience signal with low weight. Its presence is not treated as a ranking requirement.
  • Generated starter files must be reviewed against the business’s real facts and policies before publication.