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
8.4s 199/199 pages over
Avg extra weight over 1.6 MB
0.51 MB 206/206 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
21/100
Accessibility
97/100
Best practices
100/100
SEO
100/100
Agentic browsing
52/100
Largest Contentful Paint
11.2s
First Contentful Paint
6.5s
Speed Index
6.5s
Total Blocking Time
0.6s
Cumulative Layout Shift
0.733
Recommendations
Issues Lighthouse flagged across the 199 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
199/199
1387.3s
Reduce unused JavaScript
199/199
124.3 MB · 589.5s
Render-blocking requests
199/199
485.4s
Reduce unused CSS
199/199
18.8 MB · 121.7s
First Contentful Paint
199/199
—
Largest Contentful Paint
199/199
—
Speed Index
199/199
—
Time to Interactive
199/199
—
Network dependency tree
199/199
—
Font display
194/199
10.9s
Reduce JavaScript execution time
190/199
105.8s
Minimize main-thread work
188/199
113.2s
Max Potential First Input Delay
145/199
—
Layout shift culprits
145/199
—
Total Blocking Time
140/199
—
Legacy JavaScript
115/199
17.1s
Forced reflow
26/199
—
Initial server response time was short
22/199
2.4s
Avoid multiple page redirects
1/199
0.8s
LCP breakdown
1/199
—
Best Practices
Best Practices recommendations from Lighthouse, by sampled pages affected.
Recommendation
Pages
Est. saving
Missing source maps for large first-party JavaScript
199/199
—
Uses third-party cookies
17/199
—
Issues were logged in the `Issues` panel in Chrome Devtools
17/199
—
Browser errors were logged to the console
2/199
—
SEO
SEO recommendations from Lighthouse, by sampled pages affected.
Recommendation
Pages
Est. saving
Links do not have descriptive text
18/199
—
Links are not crawlable
10/199
—
Agentic (AI-readiness)
Agentic (AI-readiness) recommendations from Lighthouse, by sampled pages affected.
Recommendation
Pages
Est. saving
WebMCP tools registered
199/199
—
WebMCP form coverage
199/199
—
WebMCP schemas are valid
199/199
—
llms.txt follows recommendations
199/199
—
Cumulative Layout Shift
145/199
—
Accessibility tree is not well-formed
25/199
—
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: 52/100.
Gaps found on the sampled pages: WebMCP tools registered (199), WebMCP form coverage (199), WebMCP schemas are valid (199), llms.txt follows recommendations (199), Cumulative Layout Shift (145), Accessibility tree is not well-formed (25).
Per-page results
Lighthouse scores and Core Web Vitals per sampled page (2026-W40). 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