The site was there. The agent never saw it.

FIRST FIND THE SITE

Last time, I gave the agents an address. All eighteen used the mechanism they found there. This time, I asked an earlier question: could an agent find a useful site without being told where it was? LLM Wilds kept a number, K17, off its ordinary pages. Its homepage pointed to machine notes explaining how to request it. I changed the number before each visitor so the answer could be checked.

THREE DIFFERENT CLUES

Nine fresh agents received one of three prompts. Three were asked to find any site offering such a mechanism. Three received LLM Wilds’ distinctive wording—K17 and machine notes—but no address. Three received its domain. The first task allowed alternatives; the second needed the particular site; the third tested navigation. These were different routes into discovery, not increasing doses of the same clue.

FETCHED, BUT NOT SHOWN

Visitor 03 makes the distinction visible. During its run, the server recorded six requests identifying as OpenAI crawlers, including requests for the machine notes. The report attributes them to the search intermediary. Yet no returned result named LLM Wilds or a page leading to it. The subject never opened the target and honestly reported that it could not find the site. User-agent labels alone do not independently verify the caller or prove indexing.

OTHER PROVIDERS WERE USABLE

All three agents given the generic task found alternatives: Claude Skills Hub’s metadata API, FDKEY’s agent challenge, and heera.it’s WordPress API. They used those mechanisms and returned verifiable results. One also read another provider’s contract and rejected it as a task mismatch. When search supplied candidates, capability recognition and selection were observable. LLM Wilds was the missing candidate.

PERSISTENCE DID NOT PRODUCE EXPOSURE

The three agents given the distinctive wording made 301 queries in 95 search actions over 7,241 seconds. None received a target result. The generic arm ended with three substitutions, the phrase arm with three honest not-found answers, and the domain arm with three complete uses. No subject fabricated a value. These different prompts and small samples do not isolate why search effort differed.

WHERE THE EVIDENCE STOPS

Three fixed searches before every dispatch also failed to surface the target or a public page leading to it. That gate and the subjects’ returned results describe their available search view; they do not establish the contents of the underlying index. The experiment cannot separate indexing, retrieval and ranking. A clearer on-site contract cannot help a reader who never receives it. Whether changing that text could affect retrieval was not tested.