Public self-audit record

OpenForBots audits OpenForBots

We apply the same evidence labels, version disclosure, correction discipline, and careful conclusions to our own production site that we expect users to apply to theirs.

This is an operator-maintained trust record for the current release. It is not a signed historical ledger, proof of provider visitation, or evidence of indexing, citation, ranking, recommendation, traffic, or model use.

Current self-audit scope

Release metadata and public trust surfaces

Reviewed against the production homepage, audit experience, focused structured-data tools, published methodology, privacy and account-history disclosures, correction routes, security policy, machine-readable discovery files, and the current report runtime.

Product release
Release 0.9
Report contract
ofb-audit-r2.1
Evidence engine
ofb-evidence-r1-2026-08-02
Roadmap rules
ofb-roadmap-r2-2026-08-03
Policy alignment
ofb-policy-alignment-r1.1-2026-10-04
Structured data
ofb-jsonld-r1.2-2026-10-04
Entity signals
ofb-entity-r1.1-2026-10-04
Reviewed
Persistence
Anonymous audit snapshots retained for up to 30 days; saved account history is retained until the user deletes it

Real findings and remediations

We publish the inconsistencies we find

Trust depends on correcting our own inconsistencies publicly rather than presenting a perfect score.

OFB-SA-001 · Observed 2026-08-04 · Documentation integrity

Public methodology versions had drifted from the runtime

Meaning: Readers could not reliably connect the public methodology surface to the rule versions recorded in a completed report.

Remediation: The homepage, methodology index, changelog, and trust record now consume shared release metadata. API methodology metadata also follows the roadmap rules actually generated.

Fresh verification condition: Automated tests require public trust surfaces to consume the shared release source and require API roadmap metadata to match the generated roadmap.

State: corrected and regression checked

OFB-SA-002 · Observed 2026-08-04 · Machine-readable discovery integrity

Machine-readable llms.txt freshness and no-score wording had drifted

Meaning: The file still carried an older update date and described the methodology as including scoring even though the current product explicitly produces no aggregate score.

Remediation: llms.txt is now generated from the shared release metadata, links the public trust artifacts, and describes the current no-score methodology accurately.

Fresh verification condition: Production validation requires the current review date, report contract, self-audit links, and no scoring claim in llms.txt.

State: corrected and regression checked

OFB-SA-003 · Observed 2026-08-04 · Accessibility and brand trust

Dark trust sections inherited illegible page-level text colors

Meaning: The homepage FAQ and audit-boundary sections could render dark navy text on a near-black background, making important limitations difficult or impossible to read.

Remediation: A final shared dark-surface contract now sets explicit navy backgrounds, white headings, light body text, muted light secondary text, and accessible border colors for both sections.

Fresh verification condition: Regression tests require the shared selectors and calculate contrast ratios of at least 4.5:1 for body text and 3:1 for headings against the dark surface.

State: corrected and regression checked

OFB-SA-004 · Observed 2026-08-04 · Evidence timestamp integrity

Report timestamps used ambiguous locale-dependent formatting

Meaning: A timestamp such as 04/08/2026 could be interpreted as either 4 August or 8 April, and the displayed value did not identify its timezone.

Remediation: Completed reports now format checked and generated timestamps as YYYY-MM-DD HH:mm:ss UTC and retain the exact ISO instant in the title attribute.

Fresh verification condition: Regression tests reject toLocaleString-based report timestamps and require the explicit UTC formatter and ISO timestamp pattern.

State: corrected and regression checked

OFB-SA-005 · Observed 2026-10-04 · Privacy and persistence integrity

Public persistence and account copy lagged the shipped history product

Meaning: The detailed methodology still said completed reports were not intentionally stored, while the Trust Center described the product as stateless and the Privacy notice still said accounts and sign-in had not shipped. Those statements conflicted with anonymous snapshot retention, optional saved history, and user export and deletion controls already in the product.

Remediation: The methodology, Privacy, Terms, Trust Center, shared release metadata, and canonical product facts now distinguish anonymous 30-day retention from explicitly saved account history, state that the basic audit remains account-free, and describe the available account controls.

Fresh verification condition: Public trust surfaces should no longer describe the product as stateless or say accounts and report persistence are unavailable; they should distinguish anonymous retention from saved history and keep external-provider outcome limits explicit.

State: corrected and reviewed

OFB-SA-006 · Observed 2026-10-04 · Crawler policy interpretation integrity

Crawler-policy interpretation overstated search relevance and user-triggered robots enforcement

Meaning: The crawler registry had stale provider semantics for ChatGPT-User and Anthropic verification data, and the unified evidence layer treated string-valued search relevance such as not_direct and indirect as truthy. A blocked training or user-triggered token could therefore be counted as a blocked search-relevant crawler, while policy-goal alignment could imply robots.txt enforcement for agents whose provider says the rule may not apply or is generally ignored.

Remediation: Crawler records were revalidated against current OpenAI, Anthropic, and Perplexity documentation. Unified evidence now normalizes direct Search relevance to a boolean and requires provider-documented robots applicability before producing a Search-blocked finding. Policy-goal alignment returns not determined for non-applicable or uncertain user-triggered robots controls, and its rules version was advanced.

Fresh verification condition: Regression tests require blocked non-Search crawlers to stay out of Search-access findings, require genuinely blocked direct Search crawlers to remain actionable, and require false or unknown robots applicability to remain not determined in policy-goal alignment.

State: corrected and regression checked

OFB-SA-007 · Observed 2026-10-04 · Structured-data interpretation integrity

Structured-data checks blurred provider requirements, heuristics, and page scope

Meaning: The focused JSON-LD model could fail Organization markup for missing fields even though current Google Organization guidance documents no required properties; the Recipe checker advertised recipe-page checking while actually inspecting the homepage; and the Organization generator omitted the stable @id that the adjacent identity checker recommended.

Remediation: Structured-data rules now distinguish documented provider requirements from OpenForBots focused-shape heuristics. Organization gaps are recommendations rather than provider-required failures; Recipe retains Google-required name and image plus the conditional recipeYield rule when per-serving nutrition calories are declared; the focused Recipe tool safely inspects the submitted same-site page without adding it to homepage audit history; and the Organization generator now emits a reusable #organization @id while describing sameAs as an identity-reference relationship.

Fresh verification condition: Regression tests require Organization recommendation gaps to avoid provider-required failures, Recipe conditional requirements to remain provider-documented, targeted Recipe checks to reuse the bounded public-page retriever and stay out of saved homepage history, and generated Organization markup to include the stable identifier used by the identity guidance.

State: corrected and regression checked

Current public baseline

Trust signals a visitor can inspect directly

These are public surfaces and operating commitments, not claims about private AI-provider systems.

Versioned methodology

Report, evidence-engine, roadmap, policy-alignment, structured-data, and entity-rule versions are visible alongside update and verification dates.

Methodology changes

Material rule and interpretation changes are published so older reports remain understandable.

Persistence and user controls

Anonymous snapshots have a bounded retention window; optional saved history can be exported or deleted at audit, site, or account level.

Corrections and feedback

Public routes distinguish audit support, crawler corrections, methodology feedback, and private security reports.

Careful conclusion

What this self-audit does not establish

  • This operator-maintained record does not prove provider visitation, indexing, retrieval, citation, ranking, recommendation, traffic, training use, or revenue impact.
  • This record is not a certification, signed receipt, tamper-evident attestation, or independent audit.
  • A clean public technical foundation does not guarantee visibility or commercial outcomes.

Next review: after a material methodology, crawler-registry, structured-data/entity rule, audit-contract, security-policy, privacy/data-handling, accessibility, or production-delivery change.