What we changed
We improve the scanner constantly — fixing checks, correcting mistakes and occasionally rebalancing how much a signal counts. Some of those changes move scores.
When a change could move a score, it is marked below. If your report shows a different number from last time and the change is listed here, some of that difference is us, not your site — and where we cannot tell the two apart, the report says so instead of guessing.
-
Every scan now records which version of our scoring produced it
Your report history can now tell the difference between "your site changed" and "we changed how we measure". Older scans have been labelled retrospectively where we could establish it with certainty, and left unlabelled where we could not — we would rather say "we cannot tell" than guess.
-
A category we could not measure no longer shows as a zero
When a page could not be read completely, some groups of checks never ran. Those groups were being shown as a red zero, which read as "you failed this" when the truth was "we could not look". They now show a dash, and say so. Overall scores are unaffected — the checks were already excluded from the maths.
-
Rebalanced one check that was counting for more than it proved
One technical check almost never found a real problem, so in practice every site was treated the same by it. We adjusted how much it counts, which moved most scores by a single point or not at all, and left a little more of the result resting on the answer-engine signals this tool exists to measure.
-
A missing llms.txt is reported as a fail again
This had been softened to a warning, which contradicted our published standard. We do not lower a bar because most sites do not clear it.
-
Site scans no longer count the same page more than once
Several links can lead to one page. When they did, that page could be counted several times in a site's score. It is now counted once, however many URLs reach it.
-
A site that blocks our scanner gets no score at all
If your firewall turns us away, we can only see a handful of things — not enough to judge a site on. Rather than publishing a number built from fragments, we now publish none, and explain what happened and how to let us in.
We do not publish the exact weights or thresholds behind a check — that calibration is the part that took hundreds of real sites to get right. What we will always tell you is that something changed, and whether it could have moved your number.