Check your Machine-Readiness Score

Search & AI Discovery

Find out what is stopping your pages from being crawled, indexed and named

For US small and mid-size businesses, med-spas, home services, dental and solo-legal practices, whose pages are slow, half-indexed or invisible to AI crawlers and who want the technical blockers ranked, not just listed.

Submit a query See the method

Every engagement is directed by a technical specialist and reviewed before delivery.

What this is

The Technical Foundation Fix-List is a focused diagnostic that finds what blocks your site from being crawled, rendered and indexed, then returns it as a single ranked fix list ordered by impact on visibility. A technical specialist inspects your indexation state, rendering path, crawl hygiene, Core Web Vitals and canonical and status-code consistency, then writes each issue as a plain-English problem with the evidence behind it, the surfaces it affects, and the correction. It is the technical-floor entry point to Search Surface Optimization: we read and score only the Technical Foundation pillar of the Machine-Readiness Score, the pillar every other surface stands on, because a page that is not indexed cannot appear in a classic result or an AI answer whatever else you do to it. You get a prioritized, sourced register you can hand to any developer, not a generic checklist and not a rebuild. It diagnoses and prioritizes. It does not, on its own, promise a ranking, a citation or a traffic figure.

The problem

Why this matters now

Your pages exist, but you have probably never been shown, in one place and in priority order, which of them Google has actually indexed, which are stuck in a render queue, and which an AI crawler cannot read at all. Search Console flags symptoms one URL at a time. It does not hand you a ranked list of the underlying causes with the highest-impact fix at the top.

The technical floor decides your eligibility before any content or authority work can matter. Nothing that is not crawled, rendered and indexed can appear on a classic results page, inside an AI Overview, or as an LLM citation. When your indexation, rendering or crawl hygiene is broken, every dollar you spend on content and links is spent on pages the engines cannot fully see.

The rendering problem has quietly widened. Google indexes in two waves, a fast HTML pass and a deferred render pass that can lag from seconds to days under load (Google Search Central, JavaScript SEO documentation). Most AI crawlers, GPTBot, ClaudeBot and PerplexityBot among them, execute no JavaScript at all, so content that only appears after a script runs is invisible to them entirely. Your site can look fine in a browser and be half-blank to the engines that decide who gets named.

Generic audits make this worse by dumping two hundred findings with no priority, so the one issue actually suppressing your indexation sits at line 140 next to a trivial alt-text note. What you need is not more findings. It is the ranked, evidenced short list of what to fix first.

How it works

The mechanism, made checkable

  1. 01

    We establish what is actually indexed, not what should be

    A specialist reads your real indexation state across the engines that matter, cross-referencing Search Console coverage, live index checks and your submitted sitemap against what your site actually publishes. You get a clear picture of which pages are indexed, which are discovered but not indexed, which are excluded and why, and which important URLs the engines have never reached. This is the reading everything else is prioritized against.

  2. 02

    We test the rendering path the way engines and AI crawlers see it

    We fetch and render your key templates to separate what is in the raw HTML from what only appears after JavaScript runs, because Google indexes in two waves and most AI crawlers run no JavaScript at all (Google Search Central, JavaScript SEO). We flag content, links, canonicals and status codes that exist only client-side, the classic failure modes that leave a page looking complete in a browser but partly invisible to the index.

  3. 03

    We audit crawl hygiene and the paths that waste it

    We inspect your robots.txt, XML sitemap, redirect chains, parameter and faceted-URL sprawl, duplicate and near-duplicate paths, and canonical consistency. Wasted crawl on low-value URLs means your important pages get crawled and re-crawled less often, so we identify what is bleeding crawl and re-render capacity away from the pages that earn you business.

  4. 04

    We measure Core Web Vitals against the published field thresholds

    We read Largest Contentful Paint, Interaction to Next Paint and Cumulative Layout Shift against the documented good thresholds, LCP at or under 2.5 seconds, INP at or under 200 milliseconds and CLS at or under 0.1 at the 75th percentile of real users (web.dev Core Web Vitals, Google). INP is now the most commonly failed of the three, so where field data exists we use it, and we name the specific templates and scripts driving the failure.

  5. 05

    We rank every finding by impact on visibility, not by scanner severity

    A specialist orders the findings so the issue most suppressing crawl, render or indexation sits at the top, and cosmetic items sit where they belong. We write each entry as a plain-English problem, the evidence that proves it, the surfaces it affects, the correction, and a rough effort read. This ordered judgment is the deliverable, and it is what a raw scanner export cannot give you.

  6. 06

    We deliver a register any developer can act on, and score the pillar

    You receive the ranked fix list as a standalone document your own developer or Raveneye Global can execute against, plus your Technical Foundation pillar score, the objective and re-runnable pillar of the Machine-Readiness Score. Because these are checks against published standards, any competent auditor could reproduce them, and a re-read after the fixes shows the movement plainly.

What is included

What is delivered

  • An indexation coverage reading: indexed, discovered-not-indexed, excluded-with-reason, and never-reached URLs, cross-referenced against your sitemap and live index checks.
  • A rendering-path diagnosis per key template, flagging content, links, canonicals and HTTP status codes that exist only client-side and are at risk in the two-wave index and invisible to non-rendering AI crawlers.
  • A crawl-hygiene audit of your robots.txt, XML sitemap, redirect chains, parameter and faceted-URL sprawl, and duplicate paths, with the crawl-wasting patterns named.
  • A Core Web Vitals reading of LCP, INP and CLS against the documented good field thresholds, with the specific templates, scripts and elements behind any failure identified.
  • A canonical, HTTPS and status-code consistency check, covering mixed signals, redirect and canonical conflicts, and soft-404 patterns.
  • The ranked fix list itself: every finding written as a plain-English problem, the evidence, the affected surfaces, the recommended correction, and a rough effort read, ordered by visibility impact.
  • Your Technical Foundation pillar score with the reading dated and stamped with the engines and locale it was taken on.
  • A short executive summary that names the single highest-impact fix and the handful that follow it, written for an owner, not just a developer.

The outcome

What it moves

  • A single ranked fix list, ordered by impact on crawl, render and indexation, telling you what to fix first instead of handing you an unsorted export of hundreds of findings.
  • A clear reading of what is genuinely indexed versus discovered-but-not-indexed versus never reached, across the engines that matter, rather than a symptom-by-symptom view.
  • A rendering diagnosis that separates what is in the raw HTML from what only appears after JavaScript, showing you what AI crawlers that run no JavaScript are missing entirely.
  • A Core Web Vitals read against the published field thresholds, with the specific templates and scripts driving any failure named rather than a single blended grade.
  • A crawl-hygiene picture that shows where crawl and re-render capacity is being wasted on low-value URLs instead of the pages that generate your business.
  • Your Technical Foundation pillar score, the objective and re-runnable pillar of the Machine-Readiness Score, as a documented baseline you can measure the fixes against afterwards.

What you get

What you get, and how it is priced

Your Technical Foundation Fix-List price tracks your site: inspection depth depends on how many templates and URLs are in play. It is a diagnostic, not a build: you receive a ranked, sourced register of what to fix, which your own developer or Raveneye Global can then act on. Here is exactly what a specialist inspects, how the findings are ranked, and what you get.

Technical Foundation Fix-List. One specialist-directed diagnostic of your Technical Foundation pillar, delivered as a ranked, sourced fix list plus your pillar score and an owner-level summary. Inspection depth is scoped to your templates and URL count and agreed in writing before work begins. It is a diagnosis and a prioritized plan, not a build or a retainer. When you are ready to execute, the fixes can be carried out under Search Surface Optimization, or handed to your own developer.Quoted

You see the full deliverables and cadence first, then a price built for your business, confirmed in writing.

Submit a query

Straight answers

Questions about Technical Foundation Fix-List

You are based overseas. Does that matter for diagnosing a US site?

No. Raveneye Global, operated by RavenGroup Global Tech Private Limited, bills in USD and serves US businesses. The Technical Foundation is the most objective pillar we measure: indexation, rendering, crawl hygiene and Core Web Vitals are checks against published standards that any competent auditor could reproduce, and every reading is stamped with the engines and locale it was taken on. A technical specialist directs every engagement and reviews it before delivery. What you are buying is an engineering standard, not a time zone.

Is this an automated scan, or does a person do the analysis?

A person does the analysis. Scanners can surface raw signals, but the deliverable here is the ranking and the judgment, which a specialist provides. A person reads your indexation state, tests the rendering path, decides which issue is actually suppressing visibility, and writes each finding in plain English with its evidence and correction. That prioritization is exactly what an unsorted tool export cannot give you. A technical specialist directs every engagement and reviews it before delivery.

How do I know this diagnosis is any good?

Because this pillar is the one you can check independently. The findings are objective and re-runnable against published standards, we cite the source for each threshold, for example the Core Web Vitals field thresholds on web.dev, and we show the evidence behind every issue rather than ask you to take it on faith. A technical specialist with years of hands-on work in search and AI visibility directs the diagnosis and reviews it before delivery. Hand the same site to another competent auditor and the technical conclusions should match. The reproducibility is the proof.

Why is this scoped instead of a fixed price?

Because inspection depth depends on your site. A five-page practice and a three-hundred-page multi-location business are very different amounts of rendering tests, template audits and crawl analysis. A single shelf price would either overcharge the simple site or under-inspect the complex one. We review the shape of your site, scope the work, and quote the exact figure before anything begins. Scope comes before numbers.

How do you measure whether my pages are really indexed and rendered?

We cross-reference Search Console coverage, live index checks and your submitted sitemap to establish what is genuinely indexed versus discovered-but-not-indexed versus never reached. For rendering, we fetch and render your key templates to separate raw-HTML content from content that only appears after JavaScript, because Google indexes in two waves and most AI crawlers run no JavaScript at all (Google Search Central, JavaScript SEO). Every reading is dated and stamped with the engines it was taken on.

What exactly do you guarantee?

The reproducibility of the diagnosis. This service diagnoses and prioritizes your technical blockers; it does not on its own promise a ranking, an AI citation or a traffic figure, because engine behavior changes and results personalize. We commit to an accurate reading against published standards, a ranked fix list with the evidence shown, and a pillar score you can re-measure after the corrections. Every claim we make is shown with its working.

Do I have to buy the full program to get this?

No. The Fix-List is a standalone diagnostic, and we write the register so any developer can execute against it independently. It is the technical-floor entry point to Search Surface Optimization, so it ladders naturally into the full coordinated program if you want the fixes done and the other three pillars worked, but there is no obligation. Many owners take the Fix-List first, act on the top items, then decide.

Will fixing everything on the list get me into AI answers?

A clean technical foundation creates eligibility, it does not by itself produce a citation. Indexation and rendering decide whether an engine can read your site at all, which is a precondition for appearing on any surface, classic or AI. Being named and cited in an AI answer is a separate outcome that also needs content, entity and off-site authority work, the other pillars of the method. We fix the floor and never sell a clean audit as a promised AI-answer lift. Note that llms.txt is AI-crawler readiness only and not a ranking or citation lever; Google has confirmed its Search systems do not use it.

Related

Where this connects

Search Surface Optimization

The full coordinated program the Fix-List ladders into. When you want the technical floor fixed and the other three pillars worked as one method against the Machine-Readiness Score, this is the standing engagement it feeds.

Explore

Surface Intelligence Audit

The broader specialist diagnostic that reads more than the technical pillar, covering classic search, AI answers and reputation too, and returns one ranked, sourced fix list across the whole surface.

Explore

The Raveneye Methodology

The published method behind the work, including how the Technical Foundation pillar is measured and why the index is the substrate every other surface stands on. Read how the number is built before you buy.

Explore

Provenance

Sources

  • web.dev, Core Web Vitals, Google (good field thresholds: LCP at or under 2.5s, INP at or under 200ms, CLS at or under 0.1 at the 75th percentile of real users)
  • Google Search Central, JavaScript SEO documentation (two-wave crawl-render-index pipeline, with rendering deferred to a queue; on 4 March 2026 Google removed the older no-JavaScript-fallback guidance as outdated)
  • Search Engine Land and multiple 2026 technical-SEO analyses (most AI crawlers, including GPTBot, ClaudeBot and PerplexityBot, execute no JavaScript, so JS-dependent content is invisible to them)
  • Industry CrUX synthesis reported in 2026 technical-SEO guides (approximately 47 percent of sites meet Google's good thresholds across all three Core Web Vitals, with INP the most commonly failed), reported figure, attributed, not independently verified by us
  • Google Search Central, Guide to Optimizing for Generative AI Features on Google Search (Search does not use llms.txt; no special markup required for AI Overviews)

Begin with where the business stands.

Submit a query See the method

No obligation. The deliverable is a measured starting position and the corrections that move it most.