Sentinel Audits

Five separate lenses go into one report: traditional search visibility, answer-engine presence, generative-engine answer readiness, an ADA accessibility baseline, and California privacy compliance. They are usually sold by five different vendors, which is how a site ends up ranking well and still failing an accessibility check.

The argument underneath it is that the next thing brands compete on is not visibility but verifiability — whether a site survives being audited by a model acting on a buyer’s behalf. A page can be findable and still be unciteable, and Sentinel is built to tell you which.

Reports come in tiers, from a visibility-only baseline through the full five-discipline audit to an accessibility-and-privacy pair aimed at whoever has just received a demand letter. There is a continuous-monitoring option that diffs each report against the last one, because sites drift after launch even when the plan does not. An optional remediation file returns the findings as instructions a coding agent can apply directly.

It runs against any domain, not only sites the studio built — including, routinely, this one. The page you are reading was rebuilt in August 2026 partly because Sentinel flagged it: ten accessibility failures, a missing privacy disclosure, and a generative-engine score of 34 out of 100. Being the first customer is a useful discipline.

The audits are automated and informational. They are not a legal certification, and no scan of any kind can promise compliance with the ADA or with California privacy law — anyone claiming otherwise is selling something they cannot deliver. What a report does is tell you, concretely and with citations, what a machine sees when it looks at your site, which is the part most owners have never actually been shown.