Adapty crawl diagnostic: evidence not attributable to Adapty

The crawl captured a misrouted surface rather than Adapty's public website.

Field	Value
Domain	adapty.io
Category	Not assessable from the captured evidence
Pricing	Unknown
Pages crawled	40
Crawl date	2026-10-08
Overall score	25/100

The 25/100 score is primarily a data-validity signal. The supplied crawl reached an Adapty attribution API endpoint that served a Wave AI Note Taker App Store listing, so positioning, audience, writing, documentation, and technical SEO findings are not reliable proxies for Adapty.

The routing problem is concrete: 31 of 40 URLs returned HTTP 400. The captured listing does communicate recording, transcription, and summaries, but that evidence belongs to Wave AI, not Adapty. Accessibility and performance measurements exist for the captured route, yet they should not be read as a complete audit of Adapty's public site.

The captured route does not expose an Adapty brand surface, so positioning cannot be assessed reliably. The requested URL resolves to an App Store listing titled “Wave AI Note Taker & Recorder,” with H1 “Wave AI Note Taker & Recorder” and developer Mohrer Associates LLC. That mismatch is the central finding: a visitor or crawler cannot connect the page to Adapty. Correct the attribution redirect and canonical landing URL, then recrawl the intended public site before making positioning decisions.

A prospect arriving through the captured URL encounters Wave AI Note Taker & Recorder, not an identifiable Adapty experience. The listing communicates “Record meetings & lectures” and AI transcription and summaries, but applying that message to Adapty would be a category error. No Adapty navigation, audience statement, product path, or conversion journey was extractable from the supplied capture. Fix the attribution flow, validate the destination in the crawler, and repeat the audience and messaging review on the canonical property.

The captured route scores 62/100 for accessibility, with structural and navigation issues that should be rechecked on the intended property.

PSI reports no main landmark; the DOM lists six generic “learn more” links; and the heading sequence repeats h1 elements and skips from h1 to h3. The visual audit also reports insufficient contrast, color-only link distinction, invalid ARIA values, and small touch targets. Prioritize one rendered main landmark, descriptive link labels, ordered headings, valid ARIA values, and non-color link cues. The evidence comes from an attribution/App Store capture, so it is not a site-wide Adapty verdict.

The supplied performance data is measurable but belongs to a misrouted API/App Store surface, not a verified Adapty marketing page. Mobile field data reports p75 LCP of 2.575 seconds, just above the 2.5-second good threshold, p75 INP of 303 ms, and CLS of 0.00. On the verified page, identify the LCP element, defer non-critical JavaScript, and investigate the 985 ms field TTFB as a hypothesis. The reported 36 KiB unused CSS and unsized images also require confirmation on the correct site.

The decisive editorial finding is routing, not prose polish: the crawl presents “Wave AI Note Taker & Recorder” through an Adapty attribution endpoint. Do not publish a brand-level copy verdict from this sample. On the captured listing, the opening is concrete: “Record meetings, calls & lectures. AI transcribes and summarizes instantly — unlimited recording time, 30+ languages.” But N1 records 3,399 words in one paragraph, making the content difficult to scan. Re-crawl the intended property, then preserve the capability-led opening while separating features, proof, privacy, and the primary action into readable sections.

The evidence supports a measurement and routing problem, not a traffic-loss diagnosis for Adapty. The crawl reached an API attribution endpoint whose successful response described Wave AI, while 31 of 40 crawled URLs returned HTTP 400. No traffic symptom or algorithm correlation was supplied, so any recovery timeline would be speculative. Validate the submitted property and seed URL, correct the attribution destination, and rerun the crawl against the intended public site before drawing conclusions about stability or search performance.

Editorial QA stops at the brand boundary because the principal page is “Wave AI Note Taker & Recorder,” not Adapty content. Any verdict about Adapty voice, facts, or search copy would be falsely attributed. The captured material still fails two concrete structural checks: N1 records 3,399 words in one paragraph, and a localized attribution response says “Click ignored - missing adpt_cid” without a title, meta description, or H1. Correct the crawl target and keep attribution failures out of the content inventory, then rerun paragraph, heading, metadata, and evidence checks on the canonical property.

This documentation result is a routing-quality signal rather than a verdict on Adapty help. The only substantial page is an App Store listing titled “Wave AI Note Taker & Recorder App - App Store”; the other sampled responses are short attribution messages. The captured headings—Reviews & Updates, What is New, App Privacy, and Accessibility—are not Adapty tutorials or reference pages, and the sample contains zero code blocks. Correct the target, then assess the actual help center, guides, API reference, quickstart, and changelog paths.

This is not a reliable audit of Adapty’s public marketing site. The submitted host is api-ua.adapty.io, and the primary 200 response is an App Store listing for Wave AI; 31 of 40 inventory URLs return HTTP 400. The first action is to verify the submitted hostname and attribution seed, then recrawl the intended public domain. A few transport observations are positive: the HTTP root redirected once to HTTPS, TLS 1.3 was reported, and sampled raw and rendered word counts matched. Robots and sitemap conclusions are not assessable because robots returned an authorization error and the sitemap probe reported zero URLs.

The review's clearest finding is that the crawl target must be corrected before the results can support a product verdict. The supplied evidence is a Wave AI App Store listing plus attribution API responses, not Adapty's public website.

Two fixable weaknesses stand out: the route selection produced the wrong surface, and 31 of 40 URLs returned HTTP 400. A fresh crawl of the intended Adapty site would give the review a valid basis for positioning, documentation, and technical findings. Until then, this score is useful for diagnosing the capture, not for judging Adapty's product or audience fit.

This is a 13-dimension review based on the supplied crawl and its public dimension score table. The crawl captured 40 pages on 2026-10-08. The review uses only evidence present in that capture and keeps claims separate from findings that are not attributable to Adapty.

The crawl reached an attribution API endpoint serving a Wave AI App Store listing, and 31 of 40 URLs returned HTTP 400. GSC access was not connected. Dimensions 03 · Usability, 05 · Design execution, 12 · Decision-support surfaces, and 13 · Review-content integrity were excluded as not applicable. Re-crawl the intended public site before treating this as an Adapty product review. See How SiteList scores for the review method.