Research — Periodic Table of Digital Authority

Published — data collected, report available

In Progress — instrument exists, work underway

Planned — methodology defined, no execution date

Future — logical extension, no commitment

Meaningful restriction is inclusive of Strict (Whole-site); it is not additional to it. Strict and meaningful rates are counted against each market’s policy-observed denominator, never against the raw sample.

Flagship Research

The cross-market synthesis

Study 01 · Cross-MarketPublished29 June 2026 · v1.5

AI Crawler Access Across Four Markets: Policy, Infrastructure and Scale

The synthesis of the four country volumes on one frozen instrument. Headline rates, the policy/infrastructure mechanism split (the US denies at the edge; Great Britain and Singapore do not respond), the Googlebot-parity finding, and the organisational-scale effect, including Singapore's inversion of it.
Read the analysis →
4–5%
whole-site exclusion (strict)
8–12%
primary-content restriction
4
frozen markets
v1.5
five-class taxonomy

C01 — Global Crawler Access Series · Closed

Five-market comparative findings and integrity record

C01 · Five-MarketPublished6 September 2026 · v1.5 / v1.5.1

C01 — Global Crawler Access Series: Five-Market Comparative Findings

Australia, the United States, Great Britain, Singapore and India on one frozen evidence base. Policy-observed coverage 65.7%–80.7%; whole-site restriction 3.5%–5.0%; restriction reaching primary content 6.7%–11.7%. Every percentage is shown with the counts that produced it. Web findings publication.
Read the comparative findings →
5
markets
2,699
sampled rows
2,652
distinct domains
3.5–5.0%
whole-site (strict)
6.7–11.7%
meaningful
C01 · IntegrityPublished6 September 2026

C01 Five-Market Integrity and Freeze Record

All five market results reproduce from frozen source files with zero discrepancies. Six frozen CSV artefacts passed a three-representation byte-portability check, 18 of 18 comparisons agreeing. Records the boundary: research reproducibility is intact; historical publication-layout reproducibility is not.
Read the integrity record →
18/18
byte-portability comparisons agree
0
reproduction discrepancies

Published Country Volumes

Study 01 — AI Crawler Access, by market

US Vol 1Published29 June 2026 · v1.5

AI Crawler Access in the United States 2026

The United States volume: 808 business domains across ten sectors, read by functional purpose. Whole-site exclusion 3.8%; primary-content restriction 10.7%.
Read the study →
Correction record: GDR-004 — unknown-path review status. Documentary only; no numerical change.

3.8%
whole-site (strict)
10.7%
primary-content (meaningful)
624
policy-observed
10
industry groups
AU Vol 1Published29 June 2026 · v1.5

AI Crawler Access in Australia 2026

The Australia volume: 409 business domains across ten sectors, independently replicated on two connections. Whole-site exclusion 5.0%; primary-content restriction 11.7%.
Read the study →
5.0%
whole-site (strict)
11.7%
primary-content (meaningful)
317
policy-observed
10
industry groups
GB Vol 1Published29 June 2026 · v1.5

AI Crawler Access in the United Kingdom 2026

The United Kingdom volume: 754 business domains across ten sectors, read by functional purpose. Whole-site exclusion 4.1%; primary-content restriction 9.6%.
Read the study →
4.1%
whole-site (strict)
9.6%
primary-content (meaningful)
540
policy-observed
10
industry groups
SG Vol 1Published29 June 2026 · v1.5

AI Crawler Access in Singapore 2026

The Singapore volume: 268 business domains across nine sectors (legal omitted by design), read by functional purpose. Whole-site exclusion 4.0%; primary-content restriction 8.0%.
Read the study →
4.0%
whole-site (strict)
8.0%
primary-content (meaningful)
176
policy-observed
9
industry groups
IN Vol 1Published6 September 2026 · v1.5.1

AI Crawler Access in India 2026

The India volume, from run R006-IN: 460 organisational domains, crawler-access policy observed for 371 (80.7%) — the highest coverage in the series. Whole-site exclusion 13/371 = 3.5%; primary-content restriction 25/371 = 6.7%. India access-analysis finality is established; India registry identity-verification finality is not asserted.
Read the study →
3.5%
whole-site (strict)
6.7%
meaningful
371
policy observed of 460

Study 02 · Flagship

AI Accessibility & Machine-Readable Guidance

Study 02 · Cross-MarketPublished17 June 2026 · v1.3

Does llms.txt Mean a Business Is Open to AI?

A four-market study pairing llms.txt adoption with AI-crawler access on the same domains. Adoption is emerging (15.0%) and overwhelmingly valid when present (91.2%) — but it does not predict openness: adopters block AI crawlers at a statistically indistinguishable rate from non-adopters (36.0% vs 40.7%, p = 0.165). More than a third of adopters block the crawlers they publish guidance for. Independently reconfirms the Study 01 access numbers on the same frames.
Read the analysis →
15.0%
llms.txt adoption
91.2%
valid when present
36%
adopters who block AI
n.s.
adoption→openness link

Study 02 · Supporting Market Volumes

llms.txt adoption, by market (descriptive)

Study 02 · United StatesPublished17 June 2026 · v1.3

llms.txt Adoption in the United States

Adoption 17.0% · conformance 96.1% · contradiction 43.4%. Highest adoption volume and highest contradiction rate of the four. Descriptive market breakdown; inference in the cross-market flagship.
Read the volume →
Study 02 · AustraliaPublished17 June 2026 · v1.3

llms.txt Adoption in Australia

Adoption 12.7% · conformance 90.9% · contradiction 31.8%. Lower adoption, high conformance. Descriptive market breakdown.
Read the volume →
Study 02 · Great BritainPublished17 June 2026 · v1.3

llms.txt Adoption in Great Britain

Adoption 12.4% · conformance 84.0% · contradiction 32.4%. Lowest conformance of the four; higher infrastructure non-response narrows the paired sample. Descriptive market breakdown.
Read the volume →
Study 02 · SingaporePublished17 June 2026 · v1.3

llms.txt Adoption in Singapore

Adoption 19.4% · conformance 88.9% · contradiction 22.2%. Highest adoption and lowest contradiction; smallest adopter sample (36), so read descriptively. Market breakdown.
Read the volume →

In Progress

Instrument exists, work underway

AU Vol 2In Progress

Australian Digital Authority Benchmark 2026

How prepared are Australian businesses for AI search? An authority benchmark across 500 domains measuring the four research dimensions — Understand, Trust, Cite and Surface. The four research dimensions are the measurement lens of this instrument; they are distinct from, and not a relabelling of, the commercial Smart Card taxonomy. The research instrument is in reproducibility validation; the study publishes once validation clears.

500
domains
10
industry groups
4
research dimensions

Planned

Methodology defined, no execution date

AU Vol 3Planned

Australian AI Citation Benchmark

When AI systems are asked real questions about Australian industries, which businesses are actually cited — and does digital authority predict citation frequency? A correlation study across ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity and Gemini using a stratified sample from AU Vol 2.
US Vol 2Planned

United States Digital Authority Benchmark

The four-dimension authority benchmark applied to the US sample, following US Vol 1 and the reproducibility validation of the research instrument.
US Vol 3Planned

United States AI Citation Benchmark

Correlation of digital authority with actual AI citation frequency across major AI engines, using a stratified sample from US Vol 2.

Future Markets

Logical extensions of the series

NZ Vol 1Future

New Zealand AI Crawler Access Benchmark

AI crawler access across a structured sample of New Zealand business websites, using the same frozen methodology as the published volumes for direct cross-country comparison.
EUFuture

European AI Crawler Access Benchmarks

Country-level volumes across European markets, to be announced. Each would follow the same frozen methodology for like-for-like comparison with the existing markets.

Roles & attribution: Douglas Lord (researcher and author) · Periodic Table of Digital Authority (publisher and methodology steward) · PTODA C01 Crawler (research instrument) · Digital Dominator Pty Ltd ABN 28 616 931 116 (operating entity). This research publishes aggregate, anonymised findings only — no named individual site results are published.

All research published on this website is the original work of Douglas Lord and the property of Digital Dominator Pty Ltd. The Periodic Table of Digital Authority™ (TM 2644497) is a trade mark pending. You may cite findings with attribution. You may not reproduce studies in full or present findings as your own work. Use is subject to the Terms of Use.