Sample self-audit

Deep Domain before the improvement work.

A real, dated review of this website on 17 July 2026. It demonstrates how evidence and priorities are presented without inventing a client result.

ScopeCrawlability, initial HTML, indexability, metadata, schema, canonical facts, information architecture, service content, founder credibility, methodology, sample evidence, FAQs, citations and public AI visibility.

Snapshot date17 July 2026, before the current website upgrade.

Findings

Executive summary

The website was technically reachable and readable, but it did not demonstrate the depth, evidence or entity consistency expected from the service it was selling. The primary risk was not a crawl block. It was a credibility and information-architecture gap.

Working

HTTPS 200 response, real content in initial HTML, index/follow, canonical, open robots rules, sitemap and llms.txt.

Needs work

Thin page inventory, generic metadata, incomplete entity schema, missing business facts and unsupported article statistics.

Credibility gap

No About, service, methodology, FAQ, sample-audit or permanent Contact pages; dead template links remained in mobile navigation.

Detail

Technical findings

Check	Observed evidence
Initial HTML	247 visible words in the raw homepage response; core copy was retrievable without JavaScript.
Indexability	Index/follow directive and self-referencing canonical were present.
Crawl rules	robots.txt allowed all crawlers and referenced the Yoast sitemap.
Metadata	Homepage title was “Home – Deep Domain”; no standard meta description was present.
Schema	Yoast supplied WebPage, WebSite and Organization nodes, but the Organization omitted telephone, email, UK-wide service area, founder and services.
Machine guidance	llms.txt existed but promoted the untouched WordPress Sample Page.

Detail

Content and trust findings

!Only Home, Blog, the default Sample Page and one article were public.

!The service offer existed only as three short homepage cards.

!There was no public founder biography or description of relevant experience.

!The 24-call audit process was not explained on the website.

!No sample deliverable or client-safe evidence was available.

!No FAQ content answered buying questions about scope, providers, timing or guarantees.

!The only article cited no external sources despite making two statistical claims.

!The homepage omitted the confirmed telephone number and UK-wide service area.

!Desktop social icons led to placeholders; the mobile menu retained dead template links.

!Public searches found no clear third-party Deep Domain authority footprint.

Action

Prioritised response

Fix navigation, metadata, canonical facts, pricing and entity schema.

Replace the Sample Page with an honest About page without deleting its WordPress record.

Publish full Audit, Foundation Build and Monitoring pages.

Explain the methodology, limitations and evidence trail.

Use this dated self-audit as the first public sample instead of presenting an unapproved client report.

Add FAQs, cited articles and focused content architecture.

Build legitimate third-party profiles and mentions.

Run a controlled multi-provider baseline and remeasure after changes have propagated.

Boundaries

What this sample does not claim

No client outcome, ranking gain, citation gain or revenue result is claimed. The review records observable conditions on a specific date. A fresh 24-call Deep Domain baseline and post-change comparison are separate measurement steps; results will only be added when they have actually been collected.

Read the full audit methodology →

Want this level of evidence for your business?

See the £750 audit