A finding you can argue with.
Most audits hand you four hundred rows and a bill. What matters is whether each row shows its working and whether the order reflects what is worth your afternoon.
What you get
Scorecard
One score, eight category scores, and the coverage behind each. The fix list is ranked by severity multiplied by pages affected.
Page audit
Any crawled page on its own: what passed, what failed, and what could not be measured on that page specifically. Twenty product pages failing identically look like one finding at the site level and twenty at the page level.
Findings
Each failing check, attached to its page, with the evidence, the method that decided it, and who is allowed to fix it. A finding you cannot interrogate is an assertion.
Site memory
What the engine knows about your site as a whole: which posts compete for the same query, which topics are already covered, what shape your titles have drifted into. Cannibalization does not exist on any single page, so this is the only surface that can see it.
The link map
Every page as a dot, placed by how many clicks it sits from the home page and sized by how many pages link to it. The example is crawld.co: 94 pages and 257 editorial links, with template links left out, because a footer repeated on every page says nothing about structure.
How findings are ranked
Severity alone is the wrong sort order and it is the one almost everything uses. A missing meta description is low severity. A missing meta description on two hundred pages is the most valuable afternoon available to you. So the order is severity multiplied by pages affected, and the list is short enough to act on.
What happens next
The audit is the first stage, not the product. Each finding becomes a written-out fix in the queue. Where the fix is the content itself, the editor drafts against it. The next scan re-measures, which is how you know the afternoon was worth it.