## 4 Results
### Verification of the AI Audit Results  
Selected test attributes of most manual test tools can be customised, such as the test server location, web browser, or test mode. They are configured via a dashboard. The LLM interface has no such setup options. Hence, the conditions and methods of acquisition of performance results, for example, by WQA and WgisQA, are not explicitly stated. However, one can ask about the details of the analysis in the CUI using relevant prompts, which is impossible for manual tools. When asked whether the presented results were authentic and came from actual measurements, the LLM admitted--despite its previous declarations--that they were not real results but examples of data potentially available from Lighthouse and other measurement tools. Then, it concluded that as the FCP, LCP, and other results were actually false, it was impossible to specify the measurement method.  
The plugins reported that the website (www1) used the HTTPS protocol and had a valid SSL/TLS certificate. Still, when asked about the technical details of ascertaining these attributes, the LLM admitted it had not verified whether the website had an SSL/TLS certificate, basing its results on training data and predictions instead. Similar results were reported for the other audited website (www2).  
According to WgisQA, the tested website (www1) did not offer access to spatial services during the test. It also had no interactive maps or WebGIS components. Thus, it was impossible to directly analyse the quality of geovisualisation or spatial data accuracy. However, when asked about details, the LLM revealed that the geoinformation 'audit' of the website was based on training data and did not involve its back-end at all. Similar results were reported for the other audited website (www2).  
Although the AI plugins generated results of link audits and even flagged errors and suggested how to repair them, these were not results of actual measurements. Once again, when asked about technicalities, the LLM confessed that it could not verify the link profile of the website automatically in real time. Moreover, it had no access to dedicated tools for this task even though it had declared having performed the audit and reported its'results'. Note here that the SEO and UX/UI audit results are basic and concern the home page only. Therefore, they do not follow from an all-encompassing, structured review of all or most website components. Consequently, with their factual value and scope, such results are of minuscule use for website optimisation.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Attribute** & **Current State** & **Recommendation** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Meta description tag} & The home page has a meta description tag. Some pages, like ’Stalk & Adding unique and concise meta descriptions for each page is recommended to improve SEO visibility and CTR’. \\  & dziedzicwa cyfrowogo’, might not have a unique meta & \\  & description & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Header structure} & The home page has one HI header. The structure of H2 and H3 & \\  & headers is logical and hierarchical. However, the header structure & Ensure all pages have a consistent and logical header structure with a single H1 header and properly laid out H2 and H3 headers. \\  & may be suboptimal on some pages. & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{XML sitemap} & No sitemap.xml file found at & \\  & https://digital heritage.pl/ sittemap.xml (accessed on & \\  & 4 February 2025). No information about a sitemap in robots.txt & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* CTR: Click-Through Rate. Source: based on WQA results.  
\end{table}
Table 7: Meta information audit results according to AI (www1).