Acceptance Criteria for Search and AI-crawler Discoverability: What Must Be Proven

The direct answer

Write a test for “target URLs are fetchable without an unintended block” before execution and keep “blocked or contradictory crawl directives” as a release-blocking counterexample.

For search and AI-crawler discoverability, the relevant audience is site owners whose important pages are missing, inconsistently described, or difficult for crawlers to discover. The decision should cover crawlability, canonical URLs, sitemap discovery, structured data, indexing submission, and a readable llms.txt surface. The supplied boundary starts with domain access and a current inventory of the pages that should be discoverable and ends with an indexing, schema, and llms.txt setup for the site, presented in reviewable form.

The setup can make pages easier to discover and interpret, but it cannot guarantee rankings, citations, traffic, or inclusion in any model response.

Turn each requirement into a proof obligation

The expected deliverable is an indexing, schema, and llms.txt setup for the site.

Use domain access and a current inventory of the pages that should be discoverable as the controlled starting material.

The release reviewer adjudicates every pass, hold, or fail verdict against these registered statements.

Cover more than the happy path

The normal flow should establish whether “target URLs are fetchable without an unintended block” holds. An alternate flow should vary a permitted input while testing whether “canonical links resolve to the intended URLs” holds. The failure flow should use a fixture demonstrating “schema that parses but misdescribes the visible page” and verify containment.

Add a recovery flow for “orphaned pages absent from internal navigation”.

Judge evidence quality and freshness

For search and AI-crawler discoverability, a result from another environment cannot prove that “sitemap entries match the canonical inventory” holds in the buyer's environment.

Define pass, hold, and fail before execution

Keep sign-off independent

The implementer may produce artifacts, but the release reviewer should judge whether “the public llms.txt files expose the intended routes” holds against criteria written before the result was seen.

Record the business decision of the site owner, the technical evidence reviewed by the content owner, the acceptance verdict recorded by the release reviewer, and residual risk accepted by the site owner.

A screenshot or self-score cannot prove that “the public llms.txt files expose the intended routes” holds under the failure condition “treating llms.txt as a substitute for useful content”.

Reopen criteria when the system changes

Changes to crawlability, canonical URLs, sitemap discovery, structured data, indexing submission, and a readable llms.txt surface can invalidate a test even when the requirement text stays the same.

How the sources bound the acceptance criteria decision

For search and AI-crawler discoverability, the live catalog limits the offer to two elements. The supplied boundary is domain access and a current inventory of the pages that should be discoverable. The catalog names the deliverable as an indexing, schema, and llms.txt setup for the site. It cannot establish whether “target URLs are fetchable without an unintended block” holds in the buyer's environment.

Connect those narrow roles to a local fixture for “canonical links that point away from the intended page” rather than treating citation status as a pass.

For search and AI-crawler discoverability, limit the conclusion to the documented workflow and let the search implementation owner retain the current source-to-claim map. New authority or data requires the site owner to review the evidence boundary again.

Product-specific acceptance criteria review drills

These drills connect search and AI-crawler discoverability to concrete inputs, failures, acceptance statements, and owners. For search and AI-crawler discoverability, the drills map each criterion to a reviewable verdict.

Acceptance for search and AI-crawler discoverability is judged against a boundary record covering domain access and a current inventory of the pages that should be discoverable, never live protected material. The search implementation owner requires synthetic, non-secret cases; messages, writes, state changes, and all other external effects stay inside the fixture throughout and after each case.

Requirement trace

The requirement trace review starts with the failure case “blocked or contradictory crawl directives”. Its first owner is the site owner, who captures the current workflow state without changing it.

Anchor the drill in a current scope record covering domain access and a current inventory of the pages that should be discoverable and ask for evidence that “target URLs are fetchable without an unintended block” holds. A missing artifact leaves the requirement trace review on hold.

The release reviewer records a decision for the requirement trace review that cites the evidence for “target URLs are fetchable without an unintended block”. Unsupported parts of an indexing, schema, and llms.txt setup for the site remain open. In the requirement trace review, evidence for “target URLs are fetchable without an unintended block” maps support to pass, contradiction to fail, and unresolved to hold.

Schedule another requirement trace review if “blocked or contradictory crawl directives” acquires a new consequence or reaches a different owner.

Normal-flow result

During the normal-flow result review, reproduce a safe case involving “canonical links that point away from the intended page”. The search implementation owner records what remains observable before the next role acts.

Run the case within the documented boundary covering domain access and a current inventory of the pages that should be discoverable while the content owner checks whether “sitemap entries match the canonical inventory” holds. The observation must come from outside the candidate's self-report.

The release reviewer moves forward only after the record supports the finding “sitemap entries match the canonical inventory”. Conflicting evidence makes the release reviewer record fail and preserve the prior state. In the normal-flow result review, evidence for “sitemap entries match the canonical inventory” maps support to pass, contradiction to fail, and unresolved to hold.

Return the record to hold when the fixture, dependency, or permission used to judge whether “sitemap entries match the canonical inventory” holds changes materially.

Alternate-flow result

The alternate-flow result review examines a case involving “schema that parses but misdescribes the visible page”. The content owner separates the trigger, current state, and next decision within crawlability, canonical URLs, sitemap discovery, structured data, indexing submission, and a readable llms.txt surface.

Compare the candidate result with a frozen scope record covering domain access and a current inventory of the pages that should be discoverable for “the public llms.txt files expose the intended routes”. Preserve both sides of the comparison.

The release reviewer records pass only for “the public llms.txt files expose the intended routes”. Any wider claim about an indexing, schema, and llms.txt setup for the site stays outside the drill. In the alternate-flow result review, evidence for “the public llms.txt files expose the intended routes” maps support to pass, contradiction to fail, and unresolved to hold.

Create a fresh record when the failure case “schema that parses but misdescribes the visible page” appears beyond the tested boundary or when the prior evidence becomes stale.

Failure-flow result

Open a failure-flow result review record for the failure case “orphaned pages absent from internal navigation”. The site owner maps the trigger to one reviewable transition in crawlability, canonical URLs, sitemap discovery, structured data, indexing submission, and a readable llms.txt surface.

Let the site owner inspect a scope record covering domain access and a current inventory of the pages that should be discoverable and the evidence for “canonical links resolve to the intended URLs”. For search and AI-crawler discoverability, the failure-flow result review cannot rely on a demonstration selected after execution.

The release reviewer records a pass to permit the next bounded check on an indexing, schema, and llms.txt setup for the site, or a hold naming the missing proof for “canonical links resolve to the intended URLs”. In the failure-flow result review, evidence for “canonical links resolve to the intended URLs” maps support to pass, contradiction to fail, and unresolved to hold.

The receipt becomes stale when the workflow boundary for crawlability, canonical URLs, sitemap discovery, structured data, indexing submission, and a readable llms.txt surface changes or the release reviewer can no longer reproduce the judgment.

Independent verdict

Use “treating llms.txt as a substitute for useful content” as the bounded stress case for the independent verdict review. The site owner records where the workflow boundary for crawlability, canonical URLs, sitemap discovery, structured data, indexing submission, and a readable llms.txt surface leaves its expected path.

Source the test from a documented scope covering domain access and a current inventory of the pages that should be discoverable and state the criterion “structured data parses and agrees with visible content” before execution. The search implementation owner retains the resulting observation.

The release reviewer treats completion as insufficient unless the record resolves “structured data parses and agrees with visible content”. Merely producing an indexing, schema, and llms.txt setup for the site does not settle the drill. In the independent verdict review, evidence for “structured data parses and agrees with visible content” maps support to pass, contradiction to fail, and unresolved to hold.

Do not reuse the disposition when the failure case “treating llms.txt as a substitute for useful content” occurs under conditions outside the recorded input and authority boundary.

Evidence expiry

Treat “blocked or contradictory crawl directives” as a reason to run the evidence expiry review, not as a reason to guess. The search implementation owner traces the condition through crawlability, canonical URLs, sitemap discovery, structured data, indexing submission, and a readable llms.txt surface.

Select a representative authorized case within the boundary covering domain access and a current inventory of the pages that should be discoverable for the evidence expiry review. Its expected result is that “target URLs are fetchable without an unintended block” holds.

The release reviewer records whether the criterion “target URLs are fetchable without an unintended block” is supported, contradicted, or unresolved. It grants no broader status to an indexing, schema, and llms.txt setup for the site. In the evidence expiry review, evidence for “target URLs are fetchable without an unintended block” maps support to pass, contradiction to fail, and unresolved to hold.

Reopen this drill after a change to “blocked or contradictory crawl directives”, the input class, or the authority held by the search implementation owner.

Frequently asked question

What acceptance criteria should I use for AI Search Setup?

Require observable evidence that target URLs are fetchable without an unintended block and include “blocked or contradictory crawl directives” as a negative case. The release reviewer should record pass, hold, or fail before expansion.

A product bridge, with a boundary

The AI Search Setup is the relevant sincLLM offer for this narrow problem. The frozen live catalog describes its required boundary as domain access and a current inventory of the pages that should be discoverable and its deliverable as an indexing, schema, and llms.txt setup for the site. Treat the catalog language as a description of delivery; local evidence must still decide fit, safety, compliance, technical adequacy, and business value.