Skip to main content
SEOLens Evidence

Preparing saved report…

Sample audit

This is a saved report, not a live audit.

It is a deep audit of this site, seolens-psi.vercel.app, captured on 29 September 2026 (UTC) with analyzer 1.0.21. The findings describe the site as it was then.

Provider availability and performance measurements also describe this saved capture; current audits can receive different evidence.

Capture scope: 10 of up to 10 pages inspected.

Audit your own site

SEO analysis

seolens-psi.vercel.app

seolens-psi.vercel.app (opens in a new tab)
Deep audit · 10 pages2.6sExport PDF / CSV

Analyzed UTC · criteria set 2026.09.25.1 · how scoring works

Performance results received

Lighthouse lab measurements are included in your report. Real-user field data was unavailable; its checks remain excluded from scoring.

Lighthouse lab data is available, but no usable real-user field measurement was returned for this URL or origin.

SEO evidence report

SEO Evidence Assessment

Target
https://seolens-psi.vercel.app/
Assessment
97 / 100 search implementation readiness · moderate confidence
Report status
Complete for the evidence available at analysis time
Analyzed
September 29, 2026, 8:29 AM UTC
Scope
Deep audit · 10 pages fetched
Method
Analyzer 1.0.21 · criteria 2026.09.25.1

Search implementation readiness

Measured search implementation readiness: 97out of 100Measured score
Quality grade withheld
Weighted model coverage98 of 101 applicable checks evaluated
100%
Real-user field data
unavailable
Lighthouse lab data
available
Evidence confidence
moderate

Why the quality grade is withheld

Measured score: this result covers 100% of the weighted primary search-implementation model with moderate confidence, so its quality grade is withheld. It describes measured implementation evidence, not rankings or the unmeasured parts of the page.

Evidence behind this score

10 pages fetched · requested cap 10 · HTML as served; JavaScript was not run.

98 of 101 applicable criteria contributed points · 123 listed · moderate evidence confidence.

Primary-model weight represented: 100%.

Heuristic contribution: 17% of measured criterion weight.

Supporting measurements outside readiness: Content Signals, Structured Data, Static accessibility markup, Social Metadata.

This assessment describes the observed sample. It does not predict rankings or certify the whole site.

Search eligibility

No indexability blocker found

Every step in the chain allows this URL to be crawled and indexed.

Review indexability evidence

Export this report

Create a client-ready PDF or action plan locally in this browser.

More formats and options

Full criteria CSV contains one row per criterion. JSON includes retained evidence and measured totals. Large lists are sampled; extracted body text is omitted. Printed table samples remain limited to the rows shown. Exporting sends nothing anywhere.

Customize client exports
Client export details

The title, client and preparer appear in the PDF cover and action-plan CSV; the logo appears only in the PDF. These details stay in this browser tab. The logo must be a PNG, JPEG or WebP no larger than 512 KB.

Findings

123 criteria listed

3 partial credit2 low priority10 informational10 not checked3 unable to verify

Optional optimization to review

DOM complexity

Optional review · high effort · moderate finding confidence · about 0.7 measured model points. No required fix is implied.

Review optional roadmap

Why this is not 100

The readiness score is 97, rounded from 97.48. These categories account for the 2.52 missing points, including criteria that passed with partial credit.

  • Performance−1.94 readiness points

    Category score 90 · carries 19.4% of the readiness score

    • Caching headers1.8 of 3 points · Partial credit
    • HTML document size3 of 4 points · Partial credit
    • Lighthouse performance score4.95 of 5 points · Partial credit
  • Technical Foundations−0.58 readiness points

    Category score 98 · carries 29% of the readiness score

    • DOM complexity1.5 of 3 points · Warning

Not counted in this score, so it neither adds nor removes points: Content Signals, Structured Data, Static accessibility markup, Social Metadata.

Measured category evidence

Sparse results are withheld

Crawlability100

Weighted 25.81% of the readiness score

15 of 16 listed checks contribute points · moderate confidence · 0% heuristic

Technical98

Weighted 29.03% of the readiness score

16 of 22 listed checks contribute points · moderate confidence · 17% heuristic

On-Page100

Weighted 25.81% of the readiness score

30 of 33 listed checks contribute points · moderate confidence · 24% heuristic

Content · supportingInsufficient evidence

Observed 92/100 is retained for auditability but excluded from readiness interpretation

Supporting evidence; does not change readiness · 7 of 12 listed checks contribute points · low confidence · 100% heuristic

Performance90

Weighted 19.35% of the readiness score

5 of 10 listed checks contribute points · moderate confidence · 18% heuristic

Schema · supporting100

Supporting measurement · outside the primary readiness score

Supporting evidence; does not change readiness · 8 of 11 listed checks contribute points · moderate confidence · 0% heuristic

Accessibility markup · supporting100

Supporting measurement · outside the primary readiness score

Supporting evidence; does not change readiness · 9 of 11 listed checks contribute points · moderate confidence · 0% heuristic

Social · supporting100

Supporting measurement · outside the primary readiness score

Supporting evidence; does not change readiness · 8 of 8 listed checks contribute points · high confidence · 6% heuristic

How search implementation readiness is calculated

Each criterion carries a point value inside its category. A category score is the points earned divided by the points available, over the criteria that could actually be measured. Criteria marked not checked or unable to verify carry zero weight, so an unmeasurable criterion never costs the page points.

The central calculation uses crawlability, technical, on-page and measured performance evidence. Content heuristics, structured-data opportunities, accessibility and social presentation remain visible as supporting measurements without changing the central verdict. Sparse primary evidence is withheld; the remaining primary weights are re-normalised in the “effective weight” column. Indexing eligibility is applied separately. This is an implementation model, not a ranking prediction.

Per-category scoring breakdown showing points earned, design weight, effective weight and contribution to the overall score.
CategoryPointsScoreDesign weightEffective weightContributionCriteria
Crawlability & Indexing73 / 731001625.825.815 (+1 excluded)
Technical Foundations62.5 / 64981829.028.416 (+6 excluded)
On-Page Signals105 / 1051001625.825.830 (+3 excluded)
Content Signals23 / 25withheld20——7 (+5 excluded)
Performance19.75 / 22901219.417.45 (+5 excluded)
Structured Data42 / 421008—0.08 (+3 excluded)
Static accessibility markup33 / 331006—0.09 (+2 excluded)
Social Metadata31 / 311004—0.08
Search implementation readiness97

Legacy raw score (all measured categories): 97 / 100

It matches the primary readiness score for this report. The legacy calculation can also include categories that readiness withholds for sparse or heuristic-dominated evidence, so the values are not interchangeable. This legacy value is retained for API and export compatibility; it is not a second verdict.

Readiness score bands

  • Excellent 90–100
  • Good 75–89
  • Needs work 50–74
  • Poor 0–49

Scope of this analysis

  • This deep audit crawled 10 pages of the requested 10. Site-wide findings describe only the pages actually crawled, not the entire site.
  • The analysis reads HTML as served and does not execute JavaScript, so anything rendered after hydration is not visible to it.
  • 5 internal links not already crawled were probed for its HTTP status.
  • Core Web Vitals field data was not available for this URL or origin. Lighthouse lab diagnostics are shown separately; missing real-user metrics are excluded from Core Web Vitals scoring.

RoadmapOverview · 1 of 9

Prioritised roadmap

What to do, in the order that recovers the most measured optimization credit for the least work. Related findings that share one fix are combined into a single step.

No required fixes found.

Optional optimization opportunities follow. Confirm each one against this page’s purpose and measured performance before changing production code.

Working through the supported items would recover about 1 measured technical-optimization points. Steps are ordered by severity, supported point gain, then effort. These model points are not a forecast of traffic or rankings. 1 step has no point estimate because the relevant evidence is insufficient. Confirm the evidence and fix crawl blockers or broken user journeys before pursuing heuristic gains.

Showing 2 of 2 optional review items. These are contextual, not required fixes.

  1. Optional

    Review-only heuristics that depend on page context.

  2. OptionalLowTechnical FoundationsSubstantial+0.7 optimization pts

    Step 1: DOM complexity

    Flatten unnecessary wrapper elements where practical. This is a performance observation rather than an error — the page works, it is just more expensive to render than it needs to be.

    How to verify

    Re-run the same URL after deployment and confirm “DOM complexity” no longer reports a warning or failure. Review the underlying measurement in its real page context; a passing heuristic does not establish ranking impact.

    Architectural or content-strategy workFinding confidence: moderateReview source evidence
  3. OptionalLowContent SignalsSubstantialGain not estimated

    Step 2: Readability

    Prefer shorter, more common words where the meaning allows. Technical audiences tolerate dense prose, so treat this as informational if that matches your readers.

    How to verify

    Re-run the same URL after deployment and confirm “Readability” no longer reports a warning or failure. Review the underlying measurement in its real page context; a passing heuristic does not establish ranking impact.

    Architectural or content-strategy workFinding confidence: moderateReview source evidence

Report b5827aa7-86c7-4056-a6ef-ee21f5da37aa · analyzer 1.0.21 · criteria 2026.09.25.1 · UI build 31a2ac5df476

Fetched as compatible. This tool reads HTML as served and does not execute JavaScript. It cannot determine Google’s actual ranking decisions, and it does not run Google’s Rich Results Test — findings about rich-result eligibility describe documented preconditions only.