Methodology

This page explains how an ECGT Ready audit reads a site, how a finding is built and how the risk posture is computed. The aim is to be specific enough that you can challenge an output and confident enough to use it as input to a real decision.

1. Inputs

• The address of the page the audit starts on. The audit follows the links of that page and of the pages it finds, and reads the sitemap of the site when there is one, up to the size of the audit.
• What your workspace holds, when it holds it. That is the profile of the business (country, industry, size, sales channels, markets), the packaging profile, the labels and descriptions of your supporting documents and your policy library.
• The scope you choose for the audit, the regulations, your own policies or both.

2. What the platform reads on a page

The platform reads the text a visitor reads on a page. That is every heading, paragraph, list, table, label and button, the page title, the description the page gives to search engines, the text alternative of images, tick boxes and options with their state (ticked by default or not), drop down lists of up to 30 options, and content hidden from screen readers but shown on screen. Text that is in the page and hidden by its style, such as a closed tab or a collapsed answer, is read like the rest. Scripts, styles and embedded frames are left out, and so are templates no script has used, single characters and bare counts.

On an audit of four pages or more, the lines that at least half of the pages share, and three pages at least (header, footer, cookie strip, banners), are read once for the whole site and reported as site wide elements. The navigation menus inside the header and the footer are left out of what the models read. The rules that run without a model read their labels, which is how a withdrawal function placed in the footer is found.

A page gives 600 lines at most, and a long page is read in part. The first read and the final review take the first 24,000 characters of a page and a Guard check the first 12,000. The comparison of the pages takes the first 9,000 characters of a page and the list of missing elements the first 3,500. Both take the legal pages (terms, privacy, returns, cookies, contact) and the site wide elements up to 24,000 characters each, until this has added 80,000 characters to the check. A text that was cut ends with a mark, and each step is instructed to report nothing as missing on a page whose end it did not read.

On a full audit the platform also opens up to 30 pages in a browser. It keeps a picture of the top of each page, the names of the cookies present once the page has loaded and the other hosts the page contacts. It clicks nothing, so it makes no choice in a cookie banner.

What is not read

• Text inside an image, a video or an embedded frame. An image is read through its text alternative, when the page gives one. A notice that the law wants shown as a fixed graphic, such as the harmonised notice on the legal guarantee, is therefore found only through its text alternative or the text around it.
• Text a script loads only after a click, a scroll or a delay, such as reviews loaded on scroll or a banner shown after some seconds.
• The end of a page longer than the limits above. A step does not assess what it did not read.
• Text a script adds to a page that already shows text without it. A page that shows no text without its script is opened in a browser and read as it renders, and listed as not read when that fails.
• Pages behind a login and the steps of the checkout.
• A page no link leads to, and a page found beyond the size of the audit. The site map lists the pages found and not read.
• What a cookie is for and what a request to another host carries. The browser records names and hosts only.

3. The rule set

The platform checks each page against rules sourced from the following texts.

• Directive (EU) 2024/825 on Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition (ECGT), which amends the two directives below and applies from 27 September 2026.
• Directive 2005/29/EC on Unfair Commercial Practices, as amended by Directive (EU) 2024/825. Each kind of environmental claim has its own provision. A generic claim without recognised excellent environmental performance falls under Annex I point 4a, a claim about the whole product or the whole business that concerns one aspect under point 4b, a neutrality claim that rests on offsetting under point 4c, a sustainability label without a certification scheme under point 2a, a claim about future environmental performance without a verified implementation plan under Article 6(2)(d), and a specific claim that misleads under Article 6(1)(b). A specific and measurable claim that the page states plainly, and that nothing on the site contradicts, is recorded in the claim register and is not a finding.
• Directive 2011/83/EU on Consumer Rights, for the information a shop owes before the order (identity, price, delivery, right of withdrawal, legal guarantee, redress). Since 27 September 2026 the reminder of the legal guarantee is given with the harmonised notice of Article 22a, whose design is set by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1960. The platform looks for the notice in the text and in the text alternatives of the page that carries the legal guarantee, and says so when it finds none.
• Directive 2011/83/EU, Article 11a and Article 6(1)(h), the online withdrawal function. The storefront is checked for a function labelled withdraw from contract here or an unambiguous equivalent, a statement with name, contract and electronic address, a confirm withdrawal button, and withdrawal information that says where the function is. The platform reads public pages only, so a function placed in the customer account is reported at a lower severity, never as absent. The German termination button of section 312k BGB is a different duty and never counts.
• Directive 98/6/EC, Article 6a, the prior price. Every announced reduction on goods is checked for the lowest price the shop applied in the 30 days before, with the percentage recomputed on every price shown. Without a stated 30 day price and without a price history of its own, the platform reports a struck price as unverified (low), not as a breach. A percentage on a recommended retail price is reported as high. Loyalty schemes, personalised vouchers, conditional offers, plain comparisons and reductions on services stay under the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive. National options (perishable goods, progressive reductions) are applied only when the storefront's market is confirmed and the page shows the reason. Belgium, Luxembourg and France are cited under the directive alone until their national texts are confirmed.
• The General Data Protection Regulation, the ePrivacy Directive and the eCommerce Directive, for the privacy notice, cookies, marketing messages and the identity of the trader.
• On a full audit, the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation, the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation, the Right to Repair Directive, the General Product Safety Regulation and the European Accessibility Act. The accessibility information of a shop belongs in its general terms (Directive (EU) 2019/882, Article 13(2) and Annex V), so it is assessed there and nowhere else, and a finding names the exemption of microenterprises.
• Since 13 October 2026, on a paid audit, four more EU families, each switched on by what the pages show. Directive (EU) 2019/771 on the sale of goods and Directive (EU) 2019/770 on digital content, for what a shop may say about the guarantee (two years, free of charge, the choice between repair and replacement, the one year presumption, a commercial guarantee that states the legal remedies, the updates of goods with digital elements); Regulation (EU) 2018/302 on geo-blocking, for a refusal of the sale or of a payment by residence, nationality or the country of the card and for a redirection without consent; Directive (EU) 2023/2225 on consumer credit, for the advertising of buy now pay later and instalment offers (the warning that borrowing costs money, the representative example where a rate or a cost figure is shown, the banned wording); and Regulation (EU) 2023/2854, the Data Act, for the information a page gives before the sale of a connected product. See section 3d.
• National guidance (CNPD, DGCCRF) where it adds enforceable detail.

How a finding cites the law. Each finding names the provision it rests on, that is the act, the article and, where the rule sits in one, the paragraph and the point (for example UCPD Annex I point 4a or CRD Art. 6(1)(h)). A rule that Directive (EU) 2024/825 inserted is cited in the directive it amended. Under the citation the platform shows the text of that provision, quoted word for word from the official texts of the Publications Office of the European Union (EUR-Lex). The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive and the Consumer Rights Directive are quoted in their versions applicable from 27 September 2026, the other acts in their latest consolidated or Official Journal version. Only the typography is normalised. The plain words next to the quote are ours. The text is never written by the model, and only the Official Journal of the European Union is authentic. A national rule a finding cites is named and not quoted yet. An element the law requires that no page of the site shows (a gap across the site) is shown with the provision that requires it. A gap recorded before 1 October 2026 named the act only. The platform places it on that provision from the words of the element, and names the act as cited when the provision belongs to another act. A national rule a finding cites is quoted when the platform holds its text (France, see section 3a) and named without a quote otherwise.

A finding recorded before 1 October 2026 under a citation that named no rule is shown with the provision its words call for, and marked as corrected. Until 3 October 2026 that placement read the number of Directive (EU) 2024/825 as a target year and the word certification as a label of the trader's own, so many of these findings were shown under Article 6(2)(d) or Annex I point 2a. They are now shown under Annex I point 4a when their words name a generic claim, and under Article 6(1)(b) otherwise.

3a. Country rules, France

Since 13 October 2026 a paid audit of a French storefront applies the French rules on top of the EU families. The storefront counts as French when what its pages show confirms it, a French company form (SAS, SARL, EURL and the like), a French VAT number, a SIREN or SIRET number or a .fr address. The language of the pages alone never decides, so a French language shop in Belgium, Luxembourg, Switzerland or Québec is not treated as French. An audit limited to your own policies and the free preliminary check do not run the French rules.

What the French layer does. Where a French article transposes an EU rule already in the audit (the prior price of Art. L. 112-1-1 of the Code de la consommation, the withdrawal function of Art. L. 221-21 and D. 221-5, the order button of Art. L. 221-14, the pre contractual information of Art. L. 221-5, the misleading practices of Art. L. 121-2 and L. 121-3, the identity of the seller of LCEN Art. 19), the EU finding stays as it is and the French article is shown next to the EU one. Where a French rule has no EU counterpart, the finding rests on the French article alone, under the family Country rules, France. Those rules are the prices shown including all taxes with the delivery cost and the unit price (Art. L. 112-1), the mentions légales (LCEN Art. 19 and Art. 1-1), the French language of every consumer text (loi du 4 août 1994 and décret 95-240), the words banned on products and packaging and the recycled content wording (Code de l'environnement Art. L. 541-9-1, R. 541-228 and R. 541-230), the repairability or durability index next to the price (Art. L. 541-9-2, R. 541-213 and R. 541-220), the conditions of a carbon neutral claim (Art. L. 229-68 and D. 229-106 to D. 229-109), the legal guarantee box in the terms (Code de la consommation Art. D. 211-1 and D. 211-2), the online termination function for subscriptions (Art. L. 215-1-1, D. 215-1 and D. 215-2), the spare parts line (Art. L. 111-4) and the place of manufacture of textiles sold online (Code de l'environnement Art. L. 541-9-1-2). The Triman mark and the sorting information are product and packaging rules, so no page finding rests on them. The messages of the ultra fast fashion law wait for their decree and are not applied.

France and Directive (EU) 2024/825. At the date of this version France had not transposed the directive on empowering consumers for the green transition into the Code de la consommation. The EU findings of that family stay as they are, cited in the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive as amended, and the French layer names Art. L. 121-2 2° b (characteristics, environmental impact) or 2° e (the advertiser's commitments) as the French hook. A carbon neutral claim is assessed under the French conditional regime of Art. L. 229-68 next to the EU rule. The French lines change the day the transposition is published.

Where the French texts come from. The source of record is Legifrance. Because legifrance.gouv.fr refuses automated reads, the two codes were read on 13 October 2026 on a mirror built from the open data of the Direction de l'information légale et administrative (DILA), the data behind Legifrance, in their consolidated versions of 10 October 2026 (Code de la consommation) and 7 October 2026 (Code de l'environnement), with the Legifrance identifier of each article. Each French provision shown under a finding links to its Legifrance page. The décret 95-240 was read on the copy the Arcom publishes. LCEN Art. 19 was read on a secondary source and is marked as such until it is checked on Legifrance. Checking each French provision against its Legifrance page by hand is still to be done. The French texts are quoted word for word in French; the titles and plain words next to them are ours, and only the Journal officiel is authentic.

3b. Claims registers

Since 13 October 2026 a paid audit of a shop whose pages sell a food, a food supplement or a cosmetic checks the claims on those pages against the registers that decide them. The page is read as a product page of one of those kinds from what it shows (a nutrition table, an ingredient list, a daily dose, a way to apply the product); a page that shows none of that is not checked. An audit limited to your own policies and the free preliminary check do not run these checks.

Health claims. Each sentence that links a substance or the product to a function of the body is looked up in the EU Register of nutrition and health claims (Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, Article 13 and Article 14 lists), without a model. The register was exported on 13 October 2026 from the open data of the European Commission (2,337 claims, 269 authorised, 2,067 non authorised, 1 revoked) and the EFSA list of botanical claims on hold (1,548 entries) was read the same day. A wording that is the authorised one is reported clean with its condition of use checked against the table of the page. A wording that differs is judged on the flexibility rules the member states published in 2012, a verb that makes the claim stronger, the word normal missing, the product as subject instead of the substance, a medical turn of phrase. A wording that matches a non authorised or a revoked entry, or finds no entry, is a finding with the entry quoted. A sentence in a language other than English is not compared word for word with the English wording of the register, so it goes to the first read with the register entry of the same substance and effect in front of it. When no authorised wording exists for the substance and the effect, the nearest non authorised entry is quoted and marked as the nearest, not as the same words. A botanical claim on the EFSA list is reported as on hold, informational, with its transitional basis (Article 28(5) or 28(6), after the Court's judgment in C-386/23). A general reference to health (good for you, wellbeing, immunity) is a finding under Article 10(3) when no specific authorised claim stands next to it. The claims Article 12 bans (a rate or amount of weight loss, a recommendation by an individual doctor, a suggestion that health suffers without the food) and the statements Article 10(2) requires of a distance sale are checked on each page.

Nutrition claims. Each claim of the Annex (low fat, sugars free, high fibre, source of vitamin C and the others) is checked against the condition the Annex sets, with the figures the page gives per 100 g or 100 ml and the reference intakes of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011, with the alternatives the Annex allows (fibre per 100 kcal, half the amount for a drink, a tenth of the energy for low saturated fat). A page without the figure is reported as unverifiable, never as a breach.

Cosmetics and the words of food. A cosmetic claim is assessed on the common criteria of Regulation (EU) No 655/2013 and the technical document on cosmetic claims of the Commission's working group (version of 3 July 2017; its Annexes III and IV on free from and hypoallergenic claims apply since 1 July 2019 and are not binding), with the ingredient list of the page as the fact. The reserved terms of organic production (Regulation (EU) 2018/848), the gluten statements (Regulation (EU) No 828/2014), the lactose, vegan and natural wording and the natural flavouring wording of Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008 are checked against the ingredient list in the same way. A disease word (cures, treats, prevents, the name of a disease) on a food or a cosmetic is a finding under Article 7(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 and Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009, with, when the page names a nutrient that has an authorised claim for the same effect, that claim offered as the safe wording.

What the register check is and is not. The register and the EFSA list are data read into the platform on the date shown on the finding and refreshed with each release. A claim the lookup does not settle (a wording between the two thresholds of similarity) is handed to the first read with the register entry in front of it and marked as a judgment, never as a fact. A customer review on the page is read as the words of the customer, not of the trader, and raises no finding on the trader. The platform does not assess the composition of a product or the evidence behind a claim; it checks the words of the page against the lists and the figures the page itself gives.

3c. Labels to have

Since 13 October 2026 the report of a paid audit of the pages of a shop ends with the label guide, three lists built from what the crawl read and the claims the first read listed, without a model. An audit of your policies only and the free preliminary check read no product page and build no guide. Labels you show lists every label, badge or certification the pages name or picture, each with its state, which is one of a mark the law requires, a label of a public authority, a certification scheme with third party verification, a certification to check, a mark that certifies nothing, or a badge that matches no label of the register. A label named only in a sentence that denies it or wishes for it (we are not certified, we plan to apply) is not read as shown. Labels you should have lists the marks the law asks for the products and the country of the storefront (the EU organic logo and the control body code where the pages say organic, the energy label and the WEEE mark on electrical products, the Triman and the repairability or durability index on a French storefront, the deposit marks on drink containers in Germany and the Netherlands) and the scheme a claim of the pages needs to stay. A label of the trader's own needs a certification scheme or a public authority behind it (Directive 2005/29/EC Annex I point 2a), and a generic environmental claim needs recognised excellent environmental performance, which is the EU Ecolabel, a type I ecolabel officially recognised in the member state, or top environmental performance under other Union law, and only for the labelled product (Article 2(s), Annex I point 4a). Labels you could have lists the certification schemes and public labels that fit the products and the country and that the shop does not show, the ones behind a composition claim of the pages first (organic cotton, recycled content, fair trade, sustainable wood, fish or palm oil, vegan, gluten free, natural cosmetics). A claim no label answers is said so, a neutrality claim based on offsetting (Annex I point 4c) and a generic claim on a food, which no ecolabel covers.

The register. The guide reads a register of 50 labels, the marks of the law of the five countries of the library (EU wide, France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg) and the labels behind the claims of the claims registers, each with its owner, the words its logo carries, its product categories and countries, what it lets a shop say, what it asks, who certifies, the steps, the usual lead time, the fees and the link to apply. The status of each row under the directive (mark the law requires, label of a public authority, certification scheme, certification to check, not a certification) is our legal reading of its scheme against the definition of a certification scheme (Article 2(r), a third party verification with public requirements, open terms, a procedure against non compliance and monitoring independent of the scheme owner). The test of independence is Article 2(r)(iv), a monitoring carried out by a third party whose competence and independence from both the scheme owner and the trader are based on international, Union or national standards and procedures. A scheme whose monitoring is run by the scheme owner or its members, or whose independence we could not confirm, is marked to check, never offered as a certification scheme, and the guide says why. The fees are those the schemes publish. Where we read the fee page of a scheme, the row carries the date we read it (13 October 2026 for the first reading); where a scheme publishes no table we could read, the row says so and the link goes to the scheme, which quotes the fee. They are an indication, never a quote. We take no commission from any certifier and rank no scheme for pay. Every row carries the date it was checked; a row older than six months is marked to check on our side, and the date is shown in the report.

What the guide is not. A label backs a claim; holding one does not make a shop compliant and the list is not advice to buy a certification. A private label without third party verification is never listed as something to obtain. The guide reads the words of the pages, so a label shown only as an image without a text alternative is not seen, and a shop that confirms no country gets the EU wide marks only.

3d. Four horizontal families

Since 13 October 2026 a paid audit applies four more EU families, each switched on by what the crawl read, so a shop is judged on the rules that concern it. The platform reads the guarantee sentences of the pages, the sentences on residence, nationality, redirection and the country of a card, the pay later and instalment sentences with any cost figure and the warning next to them, and the product pages that sell a connected product (an app, a cloud account or firmware updates named next to the product) with the data information they carry. These facts are given to the models with the rules; the models decide and draft, as for every family.

The legal guarantee (Directive (EU) 2019/771, since 1 January 2022, and Directive (EU) 2019/770 for digital content). A finding is raised when a page or the terms give a guarantee under two years for new goods without naming the legal guarantee, deny the legal rights, put the proof of a defect on the consumer from delivery or keep the six month presumption of before 2022, charge a repair or a replacement under the legal guarantee or impose a voucher as the only remedy, advertise a commercial guarantee without the statement of Article 17(2), sell second hand goods with a guarantee under one year, or exclude the remedies for digital content. A one year commercial guarantee next to a correct statement of the two years is not a finding, and a returns policy for change of mind is another matter.

Geo-blocking (Regulation (EU) 2018/302, since 3 December 2018). The crawl reads from one place and cannot see a block or a redirection, so the platform judges the words of the pages. A finding is raised on a refusal of customers for their residence or nationality where the shop delivers to a member state they could use, a payment refused or charged differently by the country of the card, the account or the payment provider, a stated automatic redirection by location, or prices and conditions set by nationality rather than by delivery country. A delivery area, a price per country version and a legal requirement named on the page are not findings.

Consumer credit and pay later (Directive (EU) 2023/2225). The member states apply the directive from 20 November 2026. Until that date a finding of this family is informational, severity 1, worded as preparing for the date, unless a national rule in force covers it. On a French storefront the mention of Article L. 312-5 of the Code de la consommation and the information of Article L. 312-6 apply today to an advertisement for a credit operation of the chapter on consumer credit, that is a total amount of credit from 200 to 75,000 euros that Article L. 312-4 does not leave out, and the finding cites them. They do not reach a credit repayable within three months at no interest and no fees or only negligible ones (a pay in 3 or pay in 4 of that kind), an overdraft repayable within a month, a deferred debit card of no more than forty days, a contract for a continuous supply paid by instalments, or an amount under 200 or over 75,000 euros; a finding on such an offer cites the directive alone and stays informational until 20 November 2026. A credit advertisement here is a page sentence that offers to pay in instalments, later or on credit through a third party (Klarna, Alma, PayPal pay in 3, Scalapay and the others) or with interest or fees. The shop's own deferred payment, free of interest and charges and paid within 50 days (14 days for a large online seller), is outside the directive and is never flagged. A finding is raised when the advertisement carries no clear warning that borrowing costs money, names a rate or a cost figure without the standard information by a representative example, presents credit as a way to a better financial situation or says that existing loans weigh nothing in the assessment; a sentence on the ease or speed of the credit is reported as a practice the member state may prohibit.

The Data Act (Regulation (EU) 2023/2854, since 12 September 2025). A connected product is an item that obtains, generates or collects data on its use or environment and can communicate it. A finding is raised when the page of such a product, or a sheet it links, gives none of the four items Article 3(2) requires before the sale (the type, format and estimated volume of the data, whether it is generated continuously and in real time, where it is stored and for how long, how the user may access, retrieve or erase it), or when the app or service the product needs comes with no information on the data it collects and uses. A privacy policy covers personal data under the GDPR, not the product data of the Data Act. The texts of the four families are quoted from the Publications Office like every other provision (section 3), and the French transpositions of the guarantee and the credit rules are shown next to the EU article on a French storefront (section 3a).

4. How a finding is built

The first read takes each page on its own and returns findings. A finding carries a category, a severity from 1 (very low) to 5 (very high), a description, the text of the page it is about, a drafted fix, the provision it rests on and the documents worth keeping on file. The same read builds the claim register, the list of the environmental claims on the pages with their kind (generic claim, future pledge, label of the trader's own, neutrality claim, composition claim, third party certification) and a risk from 1 to 5. A claim whose quoted text does not appear on the page is dropped, and a finding keeps its quote only when the quote is on the page.

A full audit adds four steps. A verifier checks each finding against the allowed sources and attaches the citation. Two checks across the site list the statements that conflict between pages and the elements the law requires that no page shows. The browser step described in section 2 lists cookies and other hosts. A final review reads the pages again with the findings attached, confirms, dismisses, regrades or adds findings, merges repeats and writes the summary. A finding the review removes is kept in an audit trail.

5. The risk posture

Ready on x of 14 families

“Ready on x of 14 families” counts the 14 EU families the platform reads, with the rules added since counted in the family they belong to, and calls a family ready when the audit read it and nothing in it is left to fix (no open finding, every fixed one checked, no gap and no conflict between pages), so it is indicative, rests on the findings of the audit and nothing else, and is neither legal advice nor a certificate of conformity.

• The risk of an audit runs from 1 to 5. It is the highest severity among what the audit kept, that is its findings, its claims, the conflicts between pages and the missing elements.
• The colour follows the worst finding that is still open. It is red while a finding at 4 or 5 is open, amber at 3 and green below.
• The percentage handled is the share of the severity weight your team has resolved or dismissed. A finding at 5 weighs 8, at 4 it weighs 5, at 3 it weighs 2, at 2 it weighs 1 and at 1 it weighs a half.

6. What the posture does and does not mean

• It is an indicative risk assessment, not a legal certification.
• A low risk does not guarantee no regulator will challenge the page.
• A high risk does not mean the page is illegal. It means the wording is risky and should be substantiated or rewritten.
• We do not publish a passing label. There is no ECGT Ready badge for stores.

7. Drafted fixes and challenging a finding

For every finding the platform returns a drafted paragraph the merchant can paste into the relevant page. The drafted text is generated by the same large language model and is intended as a starting point for the merchant to adapt, not a finished legal text. The drafted fix sits next to the finding in the report and is also exported with the dossier.

You decide what happens with every finding. Each one can be dismissed as not applicable, with a note that says why, and reopened later. A dismissed finding leaves the open list and the colour of the posture, counts as handled and stays in the record of the audit. To challenge a finding or a rule, write to contact@ecgtready.eu.

8. Checking a fix

After publishing a fix you can ask for the page to be read again (Check the fix on the finding). Since 13 October 2026 the page is read with the models of the audit, the first read and the verifier, never a weaker model; the final review stays a step of the audit as a whole. The platform reads only the page the finding was on, checks every open finding of that page in the same read, and marks each one fixed when the issue no longer appears, still open when it does. When the page has not changed since the platform last read it (the audit or the last check), nothing is read again and the earlier answer stands, at no cost. The first check of a finding is free; a further check of the same finding takes one page from the page budget of your audit and is refused when that budget is used up. Each check is dated on the finding, in the platform and in the PDF and Word report.

9. AI involvement

The findings and the drafted fixes come from a large language model. A full audit runs a first read of every page, a verifier that checks each finding against the allowed sources, two checks across the whole site and a final review that reads the pages again. Each step runs on the latest version of its model. A few rules are applied without a model, on the facts read from the pages or on what the model returned (the prior price arithmetic, the labels of the withdrawal function, the provision of a claim about the future, the lookup of a health claim in the EU Register and the conditions of a nutrition claim, section 3b, the label guide, section 3c). See our AI Act notice for the transparency disclosures and the model provider.

10. Limits and known weaknesses

• The model can be wrong. Check a finding against the page it quotes.
• What section 2 lists as not read is not assessed, so an audit without a finding on a topic is not proof that the topic is in order.
• Pages written in several languages can be misclassified.
• A price history exists only from the day the platform first read a product page for you. Before that, a struck price is reported as unverified, never as a proven breach.
• The platform does not know the size of a trader, so a rule with an exemption for small traders is reported with the exemption named.
• The register check reads the words of a page against the EU Register as exported on the date shown on the finding, never the composition of the product or the evidence behind a claim. A page that gives no figure per 100 g is reported as unverifiable, and a wording the lookup cannot settle is marked as a judgment of the model (section 3b).
• The label guide reads the words of the pages against a register of 50 labels, with the fees the schemes published on the date shown where we read them; it is built only for a paid audit of the pages of a shop, it does not see a label shown as an image without a text alternative, and a badge outside the register is listed as unknown until it is added (section 3c).
• The four horizontal families run on what the pages say. A geo-blocking practice the pages do not describe (a block or a redirection the crawl cannot see from one place) is not assessed, a credit advertisement shown only as a logo is a weak finding, and a connected product whose data information sits on a sheet the crawl did not read is reported on the page alone (section 3d).
• The French rules run only when the pages confirm a French storefront. A shop established elsewhere that sells into France is audited on the EU families alone, and the French texts were read on a mirror of the Legifrance data, not on Legifrance itself (section 3a).