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
7.9s 228/228 pages over
Avg extra weight over 1.6 MB
0.54 MB 263/263 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
10.0s
First Contentful Paint
6.5s
Speed Index
6.5s
Total Blocking Time
0.7s
Cumulative Layout Shift
1
Recommendations
Issues Lighthouse flagged across the 228 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
228/228
1538.7s
Reduce unused JavaScript
228/228
146.8 MB · 687.7s
Render-blocking requests
228/228
452.4s
Reduce unused CSS
228/228
21.5 MB · 135.9s
First Contentful Paint
228/228
—
Largest Contentful Paint
228/228
—
Speed Index
228/228
—
Time to Interactive
228/228
—
Network dependency tree
228/228
—
Font display
226/228
13.0s
Reduce JavaScript execution time
223/228
145.3s
Minimize main-thread work
221/228
153.8s
Max Potential First Input Delay
193/228
—
Total Blocking Time
187/228
—
Layout shift culprits
185/228
—
Legacy JavaScript
146/228
24.3s
Forced reflow
35/228
—
Initial server response time was short
15/228
1.9s
Best Practices
Best Practices recommendations from Lighthouse, by sampled pages affected.
Recommendation
Pages
Est. saving
Missing source maps for large first-party JavaScript
228/228
—
Uses third-party cookies
22/228
—
Issues were logged in the `Issues` panel in Chrome Devtools
22/228
—
Browser errors were logged to the console
1/228
—
SEO
SEO recommendations from Lighthouse, by sampled pages affected.
Recommendation
Pages
Est. saving
Links do not have descriptive text
29/228
—
Links are not crawlable
20/228
—
Agentic (AI-readiness)
Agentic (AI-readiness) recommendations from Lighthouse, by sampled pages affected.
Recommendation
Pages
Est. saving
WebMCP tools registered
228/228
—
WebMCP form coverage
228/228
—
WebMCP schemas are valid
228/228
—
llms.txt follows recommendations
228/228
—
Cumulative Layout Shift
185/228
—
Accessibility tree is not well-formed
41/228
—
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 (228), WebMCP form coverage (228), WebMCP schemas are valid (228), llms.txt follows recommendations (228), Cumulative Layout Shift (185), Accessibility tree is not well-formed (41).
Per-page results
Lighthouse scores and Core Web Vitals per sampled page (2026-W39). 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