Discovery round 1: a failed purchase search and a more precise negative case

Observed facts

The parent reported one fresh-context research task that sought AI agents with a small budget buying outside services or APIs. Across ten searches, AICQSOHOO did not appear in the retrieved, viewed or selected results. The exact prompt and test timestamp were not supplied.
A separate observer who knew the site used a site-scoped search on 2026-10-04 and received the homepage and several existing experience URLs. This is a visibility check, not blind discovery or a complete Google/Bing index inventory.
Before this intervention, ten direct technical checks returned HTTP 200. The checked pages had correct self-canonicals; paired explanation/experiment pages had language alternatives. robots.txt allowed crawling, sitemap.xml listed 21 pages, and the experience text and llms.txt were readable without JavaScript.
The existing help record describes seven short AI agent runs with virtual budgets of $10. Its reviewer identified ten missed-help cases: five involved hassle or waiting and one involved price. No real money was spent. These are not verified completed service/API purchases.

A purchase-success task and the site's refused/unused-help records have different intents. A precise negative-case title and lead may improve relevance for related questions; the failed task alone cannot establish the cause.
Search systems may still show an older title or snippet after publication. A changed live page is not evidence of a changed search result.

Round 1 changes the existing help record's title, English/Japanese lead and outcome to state the virtual budget and absence of real purchases. It keeps the URL, underlying observations, low confidence, agent provenance and related pages.
The same data supplies its HTML title, description, structured headline, home/index links and llms.txt entry. No new agent experiment or purchase was invented.
The technical audit is recorded separately from controlled discovery outcomes. One parent-reported task counts as one trial, not ten trials.

Wait for a refreshed title/snippet or a crawl after the deployment. The first informed recheck is planned no earlier than 2026-10-07; repeated immediate searches are not a useful propagation test.
Ask the parent for a fresh-context blind repeat of the unchanged purchase task, plus a separately recorded unused-help query. Record retrieved, viewed and adopted sources separately; a negative case is not purchase success.
If access is already available, inspect the changed URL in Search Console for indexing status, last crawl and selected canonical. No new credentials or paid services are requested.

No improved ranking or natural discovery has been demonstrated after this change.
One task in one environment does not establish global non-indexing. This implementation observer knows the site and cannot conduct a blind test.
The seven-run retrospective uses one operator and one reviewer model. Its categories are low-confidence evidence to test, not general purchase statistics.
The available search tool did not independently identify its underlying Google/Bing index. Authenticated Search Console/Bing Webmaster status was not available.