What does this website claim, and what can anybody check?
Every B2B site has a wall of partner logos. Paste a domain and we read what that site already publishes — its structured data, its llms.txt, its well-known paths — and report how many of its claims about other organisations a reader could actually verify.
No signup. Nothing is stored. The audit only reads what the site already serves publicly.
What it checks
Three questions, asked of every relationship claim on the page.
Why almost every site scores the same
The vocabulary the whole web uses for this — schema.org’s memberOf, sponsor, funder, parentOrganization — has no field for when a relationship began, who is asserting it, or whether the other party agrees.
So a site with an unverifiable logo wall is not being careless. It is using the only vocabulary available, and that vocabulary has nowhere to put the answer. The honest firm and the dishonest one produce identical HTML.
directory/1 adds exactly three fields around what the site already says — who asserted it, when, and what supersedes it — and one thing the web cannot express at all: a signature from the party the claim is about, verifiable offline from both parties’ published keys. Read the profile.
Start with us
Audit flashyos.com and gda.group before you audit anyone else. We publish a fragment, so the grades are real ones — including the part that is not flattering. Nothing in the estate is countersigned yet, and the report says so.
0 of 1 public claims about another organisation have been countersigned by that organisation, at arm's length. None yet — this is the number the next phase exists to move.
A tool that graded its own author kindly would not be worth running.