30 AEO Readiness Checks Breakdown

Retrieval Eligibility & Access

17 earned / 30 possible · 11 blocked

1.1

Indexability controls

Passed 6 / 6 pts

No noindex directives found in response headers.

Evidence: meta robots: all

1.2

Snippet restrictions

Passed 5 / 5 pts

No snippet or preview restrictions applied.

Evidence: No max-snippet limit

1.3

Search-crawler access evidence

Partial 2 / 8 pts

Robots.txt allows standard Googlebot, but blocks or challenges ClaudeBot and PerplexityBot. 4 points blocked.

Evidence: User-agent: ClaudeBot Disallow: / · User-agent: PerplexityBot Disallow: /

1.4

Raw/server-readable content

Blocked 0 / 4 pts

4 points blocked: Main content is injected purely via client-side JavaScript. Raw HTML delivers an empty <div id='app'> shell.

1.5

Challenge interference

Blocked 0 / 3 pts

3 points blocked: Route serves an interactive Cloudflare Managed Challenge interstitial to automated scanners.

1.6

Internal discovery paths

Passed 2 / 2 pts

Static links to practice area pages found.

Evidence: 8 internal links in header

1.7

Canonical identity consistency

Passed 2 / 2 pts

Canonical matches URL.

Evidence: Canonical tag valid

Buyer Information & Evidence Quality

19 earned / 30 possible

2.1

Task coverage

Partial 6 / 10 pts

Practice areas are well outlined, but pricing models (retainer vs hourly) and turnaround SLAs are omitted.

Evidence: Clear description of tax advisory & forensic accounting services · No information on engagement fee structures

2.2

Explicit facts

Partial 3 / 5 pts

Years in business and partner count stated; specific client volumes omitted.

Evidence: Founded 2012 · 14 Partners

2.3

First-party evidence

Partial 4 / 6 pts

Detailed case summaries published, but client identities are anonymized.

Evidence: Three case studies with anonymized results

2.4

Claim/support connection

Partial 3 / 4 pts

Claims of '$40M recovered' tied to specific case study summary.

Evidence: Case study 2 references the $40M dispute

2.5

Freshness/version context

Partial 1 / 2 pts

No post or review publication dates listed.

Evidence: No datePublished timestamps

2.6

Useful structure

Partial 2 / 3 pts

Clean bullet points for service deliverables.

Evidence: Bulleted lists present

Entity, Brand & Trust Consistency

14 earned / 20 possible · 5 blocked

3.1

Identity clarity

Passed 5 / 5 pts

Full legal firm name, physical office address, and Bar license numbers clearly listed.

Evidence: 100 Wall Street, New York, NY · Licensed CPA & Bar affiliations

3.2

Cross-page consistency

Blocked 0 / 5 pts

5 points blocked: Crawler could not retrieve other pages due to anti-bot challenge.

3.4

Expertise/accountability evidence

Partial 4 / 5 pts

Partners' CPA, CFA, and JD credentials and universities listed.

Evidence: Bios include licenses and degrees

3.5

Provider/contact transparency

Passed 3 / 3 pts

Direct phone, email, and office directions provided.

Evidence: Phone, email, and Google Maps embed present

3.6

Appropriate authorship/ownership

Passed 2 / 2 pts

Managing Partner named as accountable editorial lead.

Evidence: Editorial oversight note by Managing Partner

Machine Comprehension

8 earned / 10 possible

4.1

Accurate machine-readable representation

Partial 2 / 3 pts

LegalService schema valid; missing areaServed and priceRange.

Evidence: LegalService JSON-LD valid

4.2

Document structure

Passed 2 / 2 pts

Semantic main, header, and footer tags properly utilized.

Evidence: Semantic elements in place

4.3

Entity/value relationships

Partial 1 / 2 pts

Service names are not explicitly linked to partner leads.

Evidence: Practice areas and partner bios in separate sections

4.4

Stable addressability

Passed 1 / 1 pts

All practice areas have distinct URL hash anchors.

Evidence: #tax-advisory, #litigation-support anchors exist

4.5

Metadata consistency

Passed 1 / 1 pts

Title tag and meta description match page content.

Evidence: Title and meta agree with page content

4.6

Local context

Passed 1 / 1 pts

Geographic jurisdiction and service radius defined.

Evidence: Serving Tri-State area explicit

Technical Delivery & Usability

6 earned / 10 possible · 3 blocked

5.1

HTTP integrity

Passed 2 / 2 pts

Returns HTTP 200.

Evidence: Status 200 OK

5.2

Origin response performance

Partial 1 / 2 pts

TTFB is 1.4 s (acceptable, but outside the fastest <1s band).

Evidence: TTFB: 1,420 ms

5.3

Rendered availability

Blocked 0 / 2 pts

2 points blocked: Headless browser timed out waiting for client challenge script to execute.

5.4

Mobile readability

Blocked 0 / 1 pts

1 point blocked: Mobile screenshot unavailable due to challenge interstitial.

5.5

Interaction clarity

Passed 2 / 2 pts

Action buttons clearly marked ('Schedule a Consultation').

Evidence: Clear consultation CTA buttons

5.6

Appropriate next-step path

Passed 1 / 1 pts

Clear direct phone and appointment booking calendar link.

Evidence: Consultation link easily reachable

summit-advisory.example

30 AEO Readiness Checks Breakdown

Retrieval Eligibility & Access

Indexability controls

Snippet restrictions

Search-crawler access evidence

Raw/server-readable content

Challenge interference

Internal discovery paths

Canonical identity consistency

Buyer Information & Evidence Quality

Task coverage

Explicit facts

First-party evidence

Claim/support connection

Freshness/version context

Useful structure

Entity, Brand & Trust Consistency

Identity clarity

Cross-page consistency

Expertise/accountability evidence

Provider/contact transparency

Appropriate authorship/ownership

Machine Comprehension

Accurate machine-readable representation

Document structure

Entity/value relationships

Stable addressability

Metadata consistency

Local context

Technical Delivery & Usability

HTTP integrity

Origin response performance

Rendered availability

Mobile readability

Interaction clarity

Appropriate next-step path

Why AEO Readiness Matters