USE THIS WHEN someone asks which opportunities suit a specific business: "what could we
bid for", "is there anything for a civil contractor in Victoria", "find work for
acme.com.au". Give `company_url` — a plain domain is fine, we resolve it — and we read
their site, build a capability profile, and score the shortlist against it.

`example` runs a built-in profile (civil, it, facilities) with no site read, for
demonstrating the shape of the answer.

Returns `{profile, matched, shown, withheld, withheld_reason, matches[], degraded,
score_means, coverage}`. Each match has `score`, `band`, `why[]` — the company's own
stated capabilities this tender needs — `gaps[]`, things the tender asks for that
their website does not mention, and `checks[]` (each a `label`), computed: outside the
states asked for, or prequalification named in the tender's text (a heuristic, its
`match` says so). `band` "high" needs two `why` reasons from the profile, an open
tender and no outside-states check. A tender listed by two sources is one match, with the
other copy under `also_listed[]`, its `match` saying the pairing is a heuristic. An
anonymous call shows the strongest few and says how many were withheld; relay
`withheld_reason` as it is.

TELL THE USER WHAT THE SCORE IS: relative fit within these results, against what their
website says. NOT a probability of winning. And `gaps` is what to check before bidding,
not a list of everything the tender requires — that is in the tender documents.

When `degraded` is true, scoring was unavailable and the order is keyword relevance
only, with no `why`/`gaps`. Say so rather than presenting it as a judged ranking.