AI Demos Research — the structured-intelligence platform. Every verdict on these pages opens to the execution behind it.
Graded 12 October 2026

Can Intercom Fin retrieve information from an external system?

Intercom Fin retrieved the shipped order's live status from the external system. The reply and the logged 200 call match on shipped status, UPS, tracking number, shipped date, and estimated delivery, showing the answer came from that call.

1 of 1 test case passed

Every test case in this scenario has a result.

Pass rate100%1 of 1 gradable
Coverage1 of 1test case with a result
1PassDid everything it was expected to do.
0FailNo test case failed.
0Not gradableEvery result here could be graded.
0UntestedEvery test case in this scenario has a result.
The pass rate is a summary. The evidence is the test case below: what we sent, what we checked, what the tool returned, and the proof.

The test case

Each test case is judged on its own: Pass, Fail, Not gradable, or Untested. The scenario result above is based on this test case.

'Has order ⟨shipped-order⟩ shipped?'PassEvidence
What we sent

“Has order 41982 shipped?”

What the tool returned

Yes — order 41982 has already shipped. • Carrier: UPS • Tracking number: 1Z999AA10123456784 • Shipped on: Oct 4, 2026 • Estimated delivery: Oct 7, 2026 You can follow the shipment using the UPS tracking number to see the latest delivery updates.

Transcribed from Proof 1 · Screen recording at 0:00

Expected vs. Found
✓Expected: Calls the order system and reports the real statusFound: The call returned 200 and the reply repeated the shipped status, UPS carrier, tracking number, shipped date, and estimated delivery from that response.
Supporting proof
Proof 1Screen recording
Screen recording: shipped-order chat and successful connector call log
Key moments
Open original ↗
Why this result

The case required a real order-system lookup and a reply that matched it. The logged call returned 200, and the reply matches its status, carrier, tracking number, shipped date, and estimated delivery.

Also observed in this test case

Call window. The log shows 14 calls in the displayed window, including one failure on 8 October; the highlighted 10 October call is the one discussed.

Finished conversation. The recording begins after the exchange was already complete, so it shows the outcome rather than the message being sent.

Tested by Ajay Vekhande · evidence dated 9 October 2026

Configuration and setup

How this tool was set up for the run and what the test needed in place. Each row is a fact from the run's records; a fact the records do not hold is left out, not guessed.

Software that produced the output
Intercom Fin
Build or version
Not exposed by the hosted product
Plan or tier
Advanced (Free trial)
Surface
Web app
Set up before the run
An order marked shipped had to exist in the store's order system.
Connector status
Live
Connector configuration
Cedarline Fin with the Get Order Status connector enabled and mapping its response attributes for Fin
Tested
9 October 2026 · Ajay Vekhande

How this scenario is graded

How we decide Pass, Fail and Not gradable. The same rules apply to every tool tested on this scenario.

How results are decided

Each test case gets one result per tool: Pass, Fail or Not gradable. A test case we haven't run yet shows Untested. There are no partial results.

The rules
  • Pass: the tool did everything the test expected, and nothing it said contradicts the correct answer.
  • Fail: at least one expected behaviour clearly didn't happen; the test case's result says which one and quotes the tool.
  • Not gradable: our evidence couldn't settle the outcome (for example a record we needed is missing). It is never counted as a fail, and the test case's result says what's missing.

Where this sits in the benchmark

This page is one cell of a larger study: one tool, one scenario. Only this benchmark's frame appears here.

History of this result

What has happened to this result since it was first published. Runs and grades are never overwritten: a retest or a re-grade publishes a new result and keeps the earlier one readable.

from the publication record
31 October 2026First publishedAI Customer Support Chatbots v1

Act on this result

Nothing filed here edits the run or the grade. A challenge opens a review, and a review can produce a new run or a re-grade — which becomes the current result and leaves this one in the history.

This matches what I see

You run the same kind of test against your own setup and get the same behaviour.

Agree →
This does not match

Yours behaves differently. Tell us what you got, with a screenshot if you have one.

Disagree →
Point out an issue

Something here is wrong — a reference value, a transcription, a grade.

Report an issue →
Request a retest

On a newer build, a larger dataset, or your own setup.

Request a retest →
We have fixed this

Tell us what changed and we schedule a rerun of the failing test case. The old result stays as history.

Vendor notice →
Filed against this evidenceNothing yet. Challenges, counter-evidence and fix notices appear here with their outcome, and stay on the page after they are resolved.
Cite this result
aidemos.com/benchmarks/ai-customer-support-chatbots/results/fin/external-system-retrieval · 1 pass · 0 fail · coverage 1/1 · graded 2026-10-12

The same record is available as structured data through the AI Demos MCP server, with the counts, the coverage and every per-test-case reason carried as fields.

Verify the proof files

These files support this result. Open a file to inspect the original evidence.

File fingerprints (SHA-256)

A fingerprint identifies the exact file used for this result.

Proof 1 · Screen recording0bb308d04feee8fd15d3633db6b2e8b1aa761872fd67d891bedd4ad38d9109e3