Yes. A recent site is not automatically a readable site.
Many new sites are visually clean, fast and technically acceptable, yet they remain weak on deeper dimensions:
- poorly prioritized offer;
- insufficient evidence;
- unclear vocabulary;
- thin documentation;
- ambiguous brand;
- missing machine surfaces;
- too-weak editorial linking.
In other words, a site’s freshness guarantees neither its coherence nor its ability to be correctly interpreted. In some cases, it is even more cost-effective to intervene early, when the structure can still be corrected without a heavy workstream.
A recent site can therefore absolutely justify a diagnostic if it still gives an impression of vagueness, fragmentation or unmet promise. A site’s newness does not protect against a digital readability problem.