AI agents now browse and buy on people's behalf, and benchmarks measure how well the agents perform. Far less is known about the other side of the transaction: whether a merchant's website lets an agent in, publishes terms precise enough to decide a purchase, and leaves evidence of what was agreed. This paper presents a merchant-side benchmark built on those three questions and reports a pilot of it. The central measurement, decision sufficiency, rates each criterion of a concrete buyer mandate (total cost, cancellation or return terms, service date, variant identity) as determinate, indeterminate, or unknown from the merchant's own published evidence. Readiness scores carry their evidence coverage and missingness bounds; access is reported separately for a declared bot, a declared headless browser, and a user-present browser; and each observed term is mapped to the RAILS admissibility class of the evidence that could support it in a dispute. Four large merchants received the full assessment: three refused the declared profiles at their offer pages, and no mandate could be confirmed as met, because each merchant left a total or a refund term undetermined. An access census of 555 sites of merchants that two payment processors publicly name as clients found the home page unreadable to both declared profiles at 105 sites (18.9%). A declared assessment of 330 merchants, scored by deterministic rules without a rater, found that evidence coverage rather than the score decides who can be ranked: 115 merchants (35%) reached the ranking threshold, rankable profiles scored a median of 89 to 90, and material terms was the one pillar well below the others, because the all-in total was decidable at 18 merchants. The pilot shows that the measurements can be taken; it does not validate them or rank merchants, and the weights and the projected clearing band await validation against outcomes.

翻译：暂无翻译