Sample report

• –EC1 Primary enquiry action · The main "enquire" action is present but not prominent above the fold. Needs Attention · 2.5/5
• ✓EC2 Contact-route availability · More than one way to make contact (form and phone) is available. Pass · 6/6
• –EC3 Enquiry form quality · The public enquiry form has eight required fields, making it longer than the V1 Pass threshold. Needs Attention · 3/6
• –EC4 Phone contact on mobile · A phone number is shown but is not tap-to-call on mobile. Needs Attention · 2/4
• –EC5 Clear service proposition · What the business offers is stated but not clearly summarised near the top. Needs Attention · 2/4

• ✓LV1 Google Business Profile match · One high-confidence Google Business Profile match was found for the supplied business name and town/postcode. Pass · 8/8
• ✓LV2 Name and location consistency · The website business name and primary town/postcode match the reliable Google Business Profile record. Pass · 4/4
• ✓LV3 Visible service area · The service area is clearly stated on the site. Pass · 4/4
• –LV4 Search-accessible homepage · The homepage returns 200 and has no noindex directive, but conflicting robots directives make crawl permission less clear. Needs Attention · 2/4

• ✓WX1 Mobile loading experience · Illustrative mobile Lighthouse performance is 82, with lab LCP 2.3s and CLS 0.07 (illustrative lab figures, not real-user measurements). Pass · 7/7
• –WX2 Mobile legibility / basic accessibility · Illustrative mobile Lighthouse accessibility score is 84, so it falls within the V1 Needs Attention range (not a legal WCAG compliance result). Needs Attention · 1.5/3
• –WX3 Secure site delivery · HTTPS works correctly, but the HTTP version remains directly reachable instead of redirecting to HTTPS. Needs Attention · 1/2
• ✓WX4 Critical-page availability · The homepage, contact page and selected service page return 200 and render page titles successfully. Pass · 3/3

• ✓TP1 Clear business identity / contact details · The trading name is visible together with a phone number and email address. Pass · 5/5
• ✓TP2 Customer proof · Three attributed customer testimonials are visible, each with identifying customer or platform context. Pass · 5/5
• ✓TP3 Relevant qualifications / accreditation / insurance · A trade-relevant accreditation is shown with the recognised issuer/name visible. Pass · 3/3
• –TP4 Work & project evidence · One contextual project example is visible with a short explanation of the service performed. Needs Attention · 1/2

RF2–RF4 are owner-confirmed answers about how processes are defined. They do not measure actual response speed or follow-up execution.

• ✓RF1 Form Enquiry Expectation-Setting · Visible wording beside the enquiry form explains what happens next and gives a clear response expectation. Pass · 3/3
• –RF2 Response standard · Owner confirms a response target exists for some enquiry routes, but not consistently across phone, form and messages. Owner-confirmed Needs Attention · 2/4
• –RF3 Enquiry capture · Owner confirms some enquiry routes are recorded in a shared system, but not all routes are captured there. Owner-confirmed Needs Attention · 2/4
• –RF4 Follow-up process · Owner confirms one ad-hoc follow-up is normally made for an unbooked enquiry, rather than a defined multi-step process. Owner-confirmed Needs Attention · 2/4

• –AS1 Machine-readable business identity · No usable LocalBusiness or Organization JSON-LD containing the required business identity fields was detected. Fail · 0/4
• –AS2 Semantic service-content structure · The primary service is described, but the service page does not meet the complete V1 heading/content structure required for Pass. Needs Attention · 1.5/3
• –AS3 Machine-readable core-content delivery · The initial HTML contains some core business content, but rendering adds more than half of the business-relevant text. Needs Attention · 1.5/3