How did 30 Swiss law firms and fiduciaries respond to technical site checks?
This archived sample sent ordinary-IP HTTP requests carrying seven crawler user-agent strings to 30 Swiss law firms, notaries, and fiduciaries, then checked selected site files and homepage markup. Eleven sites returned a non-200 response to at least one simulation while the Googlebot reference request returned 200. The test does not show whether a real crawler reached, parsed, indexed, cited, or recommended any site.
Archived 2026-07-11. Reports 001 to 003 used an earlier technical site-check protocol. They remain online as dated records with later evidence-boundary corrections and are delisted from search. Missing llms.txt or machine-readable files is a recorded hygiene condition, not evidence of citation impact.
Related historical records include the US software field sample, Deep Ocean's dated AI Citation Index, and the archived report on Swiss private clinics. Deep Ocean currently has no commercial offer.
publish no llms.txt and no machine-readable brief. That is a recorded hygiene condition. This sample did not test citation impact, and current evidence does not support these files as standalone citation levers.
publish no structured Organization entity in the markup checked by this historical scan.
triggered at least one historical alert rule: a non-200 ordinary-IP user-agent simulation or no structured Organization record. The rule did not establish retrieval impact.
returned a non-200 response to at least one request carrying an AI-related crawler user-agent while the Googlebot reference request returned 200, in one test from our location.
Five observed site conditions
This historical report recorded selected site files, homepage markup, and ordinary-IP HTTP responses from one location and date. It did not measure real-crawler access, parsing, indexing, retrieval, citations, or recommendations.
Share of Swiss law firms & fiduciaries with each gap
Non-200 responses in user-agent simulations
Each site received seven ordinary-IP requests carrying crawler user-agent strings. The results show the HTTP responses returned from our test vantage, not whether the real crawlers reached the sites.
Share returning a non-200 response to each crawler user-agent
Methodology
- SAMPLE
- 30 independent Swiss law firms, notaries, and fiduciaries, weighted toward Italian-speaking Ticino (Lugano, Bellinzona, Locarno, Mendrisio) with Zurich, Geneva, and Zug included for a national picture. Big Four and international megafirms excluded in favor of independent boutique practices. Firm names are withheld; only aggregate figures are reported.
- WHAT WE TESTED
- Ordinary-IP HTTP responses to 7 crawler user-agent simulations, presence of
llms.txt,robots.txtandsitemap.xml, and homepage structured data (JSON-LD types, including whether a business entity is declared). - CRAWLERS
- GPTBot, OAI-SearchBot, ClaudeBot, PerplexityBot, Google-Extended, plus Googlebot and Bingbot as reference.
- HOW
- Every measurement is a single HTTPS request, and the report lists the exact
curlcommand behind each one so a business's own web team can re-run it. A later run can return a different response; server behavior varies with IP, location, time, CDN, and WAF rules. - DATE
- 5 Jul 2026, single run.
Scope and limits
- This records ordinary-IP HTTP responses to requests carrying user-agent strings and selected site-file and homepage-markup conditions. It does not show whether real crawlers reached, parsed, indexed, cited, or recommended a site.
- Requests were made from a single vantage on one date. A non-200 response may reflect transient timeouts, rate limits, geographic rules, CDN or WAF behavior, or another server condition. It is not proof of a permanent block.
- Structured-data checks read the homepage only. An entity declared on a deeper page would not be counted here.