Public site audit

SEO and AEO Site Audit

Review what a bounded scan finds on up to 25 public pages, why it may matter, and what to discuss with your web provider.

How this check works

The scan retrieves public pages through CaseLoad Select's server. Do not enter private, preview or confidential URLs, or URLs containing sensitive query parameters. Results are diagnostic observations, not ranking, traffic or AI-citation predictions.

Open the audit directly

Method and limits

A bounded check of public evidence

This page explains the v5 website checks and separate answer engine optimization (AEO) observations behind the report. The overview introduces strengths, priorities and next steps from a bounded sample. Search engines and AI services make their own decisions.

01 / Collection

What enters a scan

The checker starts from a public website address, consults its robots and sitemap signals for URL discovery, then retrieves up to 25 public pages for inspection. It reads the initial HTML, meaning the page code returned before a browser runs scripts. The cap is a practical sample, not an exhaustive inventory of the site.

Findings describe retrieved page HTML and the signals the checker can observe there.
A retrieval or access limit can leave pages unseen. A robots.txt allowance does not prove a provider can or will crawl a page.
The public scan does not connect to Google Search Console, Bing Webmaster Tools, analytics accounts or private site data.

02 / Report evidence

What we check

Five core check types cover page titles, successful page responses, Google search instructions, crawl rules and secure connections. The report presents observed conditions and page counts instead of an overall SEO grade.

AI observations are prompts for review. They do not measure answer quality or show whether an AI service recommends or cites the firm.

A setting may be intentional. Use a professional review to decide which pages should attract clients and which changes are warranted.

Show the check boundaries

A title check records presence, not quality. Page responses and secure connections describe what the scanner received. Google search instructions come from the inspected page code and response headers; unclear scope is reported as unknown. Crawl rules describe settings, not proof that a provider accessed a page.

The scan does not query Google or confirm indexing. Numeric calculations remain in stored scan data for compatibility, but the current public report does not publish an overall grade. Historical reports retain their original method and interpretation.

03 / Interpretation

Read in context

The findings come from CaseLoad Select’s own checks. They are not a Google, Microsoft, OpenAI, Anthropic or Perplexity certification, endorsement or ranking assessment.

AI crawler observations are reported separately and do not measure whether a service recommends the firm.
The scan does not confirm Google indexing, search rankings, AI citations, traffic or business outcomes.
It does not assess legal compliance, the quality or truth of page content, or Core Web Vitals from real users.

04 / Next steps

Use findings to guide a closer review

Start with the affected page. Confirm whether the observed condition matches the firm’s intent, then ask a web professional to review the relevant setting and any wider effect. The scan cannot decide which pages should appear in search or whether a site-wide change is appropriate.

Reference register

Guidelines and documents behind the review

The register separates sources used in checks or report explanations, broader context, account-only review and items still pending. A source may inform an observation without making it a reason for an automatic change. Its inclusion does not imply endorsement or a ranking rule.

Search access, technical pages and structured data

These sources inform current checks and report explanations or provide context for public crawling, snippets, URL signals and structured data. The five core check types listed above support the report’s evidence summary. Provider guidance does not make every signal mandatory, and a schema vocabulary does not make a field required for eligibility.

Current check referenceGoogle Search technical requirementsBaseline technical guidance. Meeting requirements does not guarantee indexing.
Current check referenceGoogle guidance on title linksEvery page should specify a title. Google gives no character limit; length is not scored.
Current check referenceGoogle guidance on search snippetsGoogle primarily uses page content and may use a meta description. It sets no fixed description length.
Current check referenceGoogle controls for crawling and snippetsRobots directives and controls over what Google can crawl or show.
Context for reviewGoogle guidance on canonical URLsGoogle says a canonical preference is not required. Its absence alone is not a defect.
Context for reviewGoogle guidance on sitemapsProperly linked pages can usually be discovered without a sitemap; a sitemap can help larger or more complex sites.
Context for reviewGoogle robots meta tag specificationsPage-level nofollow affects link-following instructions. It may be intentional and is distinct from rel=nofollow on one link.
Context for reviewGoogle guidance on redirectsRedirects are normal URL-management signals; assess the response and destination rather than penalizing their presence.
Context for reviewGoogle guidance on redirect chains during site movesGoogle advises direct redirects where possible; otherwise keep chains low, ideally no more than 3 and fewer than 5.
Current check referenceGoogle structured data policiesEligibility and policy guidance, not a promise of a rich result.
Current check referenceGoogle review snippet guidanceIncludes restrictions on review markup for a business’s own reviews.
Context for reviewSchema.org LegalService vocabularyVocabulary reference, not a Google requirement. Development vocabulary checked 28 October 2026.
Current check referenceRFC 9309: Robots Exclusion ProtocolProtocol reference for robots.txt behavior.
Current check referenceSitemaps protocolURL discovery format reference.

Search guidance and AI crawler documentation

Current check references and context for crawler behavior. Provider documentation describes a provider’s published systems and controls; it does not establish that a page is fetched, selected or cited.

Current check referenceGoogle guidance for AI featuresIt does not prescribe an ideal word count, special AI schema or llms.txt requirement.
Current check referenceOpenAI bots and crawlersProvider documentation for published crawler identities and controls.
Current check referenceAnthropic web crawling and site-owner controlsProvider documentation for web crawling and blocking.
Current check referencePerplexity crawler documentationProvider documentation for published crawler behavior.
Context for reviewGoogle-Extended documentationPublished control for some Gemini training and grounding uses. It is separate from Search Console’s AI feature setting and does not establish Search AI visibility.
Context for reviewApplebot-Extended and publisher controlsApple documentation on controls for use of site content in Apple Intelligence training and product features.
Context for reviewCommon Crawl CCBotPublic web archive crawler and dataset context. Inclusion does not prove search ranking or AI citation.
Context for reviewMeta web crawler documentationProvider documentation for published crawling and indexing uses; it does not prove a URL is fetched or selected.
Context for reviewCloudflare AI Crawl Control and WAFAccess-control context. A robots allowance does not prove a request reaches the site.
Context for reviewGoogle guidance on third-party SEO providersA provider score is not proof of ranking or Google endorsement.

Experience, change history and account reporting

Current account review references are not inputs to this anonymous public scan. Date labels below indicate our review date unless the note gives a publication or rollout date.

Context for reviewGoogle page experience guidanceContext for the limits of page-experience signals.
Context for reviewWeb Vitals overviewReal-user and field measurement context; not measured by raw HTML retrieval.
Account reviewGoogle Search Console AI feature configurationAccount-level setting, not checked by this public scan.
Account reviewGoogle Search Console AI feature reportingReporting is available worldwide as of 31 August 2026; not checked by this public scan.
Account reviewBing Webmaster Tools AI Performance public previewAccount-specific citation reporting, not part of a public crawl.
Context for reviewBing AI Performance Topics portfolio betaOptional beta context, not a public check or score input.
Context for reviewGoogle Search documentation updatesFAQ rich results were retired 7 May 2026; documentation was removed 15 June 2026. JavaScript is not inherently bad.

Broader context and sources pending verification

These materials may inform future review. They are not represented as current requirements or scoring rules.

Context for reviewMicrosoft: From Discovery to Influence, an AEO and GEO guideRetail-oriented context read in full. Law firms do not need retail Product or Offer feeds because this document discusses them.
Context for reviewMicrosoft guidance on content for AI search answersEditorial context; chunking advice is not treated as a requirement.
Reviewed contextBing Webmaster GuidelinesReviewed guidance on discovery and content; no guarantee of rankings or citations.
Pending verificationLaw Society of Ontario Rules of Professional Conduct, Chapter 4Full-source review pending. This check is not a legal compliance review.

Methodology v5 was released on 29 October 2026. The public report introduces strengths, priorities and next steps without an overall grade.

Source review: 28 October 2026. The next manual review is planned for 28 November 2026. This is a review date, not an automated monitoring or update service. Method changes should be published with a version and dated change record.

Read the report as a working diagnostic

Prioritise what is observable, then review the decision.

The audit reports findings with affected URLs, evidence and practical next steps. Use those observations to decide what deserves a technical fix, a content decision or a closer human review.