History & Trends → Severity, Lighthouse and other measures across 17 weeks.
Performance impact
How far pages fall short of Google's "good" benchmarks: Largest Contentful Paint ≤ 2.5s and page weight ≤ 1.6 MB. Lower is better.
Avg extra LCP over 2.5s
8.3s 256/256 pages over
Avg extra weight over 1.6 MB
0.60 MB 249/249 pages over
Set page_loads_per_week for this target to also estimate total wasted time and data (the way daily-dap uses traffic counts).
Medians across sampled pages
Performance
20/100
Accessibility
97/100
Best practices
100/100
SEO
100/100
Agentic browsing
51/100
Largest Contentful Paint
10.5s
First Contentful Paint
6.9s
Speed Index
6.9s
Total Blocking Time
0.6s
Cumulative Layout Shift
1
Recommendations
Issues Lighthouse flagged across the 256 sampled page(s), beyond the headline scores — grouped by category and ranked by how many pages they affect. Estimated savings (transfer bytes or load time) are Lighthouse's own estimates where available. Accessibility audits are intentionally omitted; they overlap with the axe-core findings on the Accessibility page.
Performance
Performance recommendations from Lighthouse, by sampled pages affected.
Recommendation
Pages
Est. saving
Use efficient cache lifetimes
256/256
1816.3s
Reduce unused JavaScript
256/256
174.3 MB · 829.9s
Render-blocking requests
256/256
523.2s
Reduce unused CSS
256/256
24.1 MB · 151.9s
Legacy JavaScript
256/256
46.2s
First Contentful Paint
256/256
—
Largest Contentful Paint
256/256
—
Speed Index
256/256
—
Time to Interactive
256/256
—
Network dependency tree
256/256
—
Font display
234/256
13.4s
JavaScript execution time
233/256
153.7s
Minimize main-thread work
231/256
163.8s
Max Potential First Input Delay
214/256
—
Total Blocking Time
210/256
—
Layout shift culprits
204/256
—
Forced reflow
34/256
—
Initial server response time was short
11/256
1.1s
Avoid multiple page redirects
2/256
1.6s
Document request latency
1/256
0.1s
Best Practices
Best Practices recommendations from Lighthouse, by sampled pages affected.
Recommendation
Pages
Est. saving
Missing source maps for large first-party JavaScript
256/256
—
Uses third-party cookies
22/256
—
Issues were logged in the `Issues` panel in Chrome Devtools
22/256
—
Browser errors were logged to the console
2/256
—
SEO
SEO recommendations from Lighthouse, by sampled pages affected.
Recommendation
Pages
Est. saving
Links do not have descriptive text
30/256
—
Links are not crawlable
23/256
—
Agentic (AI-readiness)
Agentic (AI-readiness) recommendations from Lighthouse, by sampled pages affected.
Recommendation
Pages
Est. saving
WebMCP tools registered
256/256
—
WebMCP form coverage
256/256
—
WebMCP schemas are valid
256/256
—
llms.txt follows recommendations
256/256
—
Cumulative Layout Shift
204/256
—
Accessibility tree is not well-formed
43/256
—
What the Agentic score means
The Agentic (AI-readiness) score is new in Google Lighthouse (13.4+). It measures how well a page works for AI agents and assistants — the tools that increasingly mediate how people find and use government services. It checks for things like an llms.txt file (a machine-readable guide for language models), valid structured data, a well-formed accessibility tree that agents can parse, and WebMCP tool/form descriptions. A higher score means an AI assistant is more likely to understand the page and complete tasks on a citizen's behalf correctly.
It is experimental and evolving; treat it as a forward-looking signal, not a compliance requirement. Median across sampled pages: 51/100.
Gaps found on the sampled pages: WebMCP tools registered (256), WebMCP form coverage (256), WebMCP schemas are valid (256), llms.txt follows recommendations (256), Cumulative Layout Shift (204), Accessibility tree is not well-formed (43).
Per-page results
Lighthouse scores and Core Web Vitals per sampled page (2026-W38). Agentic = experimental agentic-browsing score. PWA / offline readiness is tracked in the Standards tab (Lighthouse 12+ removed the PWA category). — click a column heading to sort