We read the storefront, but too little of the instrument applied to publish a score that is comparable to the rest of the list. The pillars we did observe are shown.
only 3 of the 8 sampled pages were readable — below the 4-page minimum for a comparable composite. The pillars we measured are shown.
Each pillar shows the points earned against the maximum that was actually observable. Where a signal could not be observed it is removed from both sides rather than scored as a failure.
8 pts not observable
| robots.txt readable | no — not reachable by a standards-compliant client |
| AI crawler stance | no AI user-agents named (an absent rule permits the crawler) |
| Sitemap | yes, including a product sitemap |
| UCP profile | none at /.well-known/ucp — this is not evidence against adoption |
| llms.txt | none |
It is not an audit and not a judgement of the business — it is a 8-page sample taken on a stated date, scored on a published rubric with no model judgement in it. Nothing here predicts whether any assistant will recommend you; for most answer engines that is decided by a private merchant feed we cannot see. If a number here is wrong, tell us and it goes in the public corrections log.
This scorecard is a sample — eight product pages, drawn at random from a published seed. It tells you where Pet Supplies Plus stands, not which SKUs are costing you. We’ll run a real sample of the whole catalog through the same extractor and send back the fields that are missing, by product.
Everything above stays free either way — the rubric, the sampled pages, the dataset, and every other company’s scorecard.