Can Intercom Fin continue an earlier conversation when the customer comes back later?
Intercom Fin continued the earlier return conversation after the widget was closed and reopened. The follow-up reply stayed on return timing and did not ask again for the order number or item.
1 of 1 test case passed
Every test case in this scenario has a result.
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.
Return discussed in session 1, followed up in session 2PassEvidence
Input 1: “Hi, I'd like to return order 41455 - I ordered the wrong sofa.”
Input 2: “I'm following up on my return.”
Response 1 replies to Input 1.
Response 2 replies to Input 2.
Response to input 1 Got it - that happens sometimes. Here's how returns work for a sofa: You have 21 days from the delivery date to request a return (45 days if you're a Cedarline Plus member). The item needs to be in resalable condition, ideally with the original packaging. Once the return is received and inspected, refunds are issued to the original payment method and usually take 5-7 business days after inspection. If the order has already shipped, you can refuse the delivery or return it after receiving it. If you want, I can also walk you through the next step to start the return. Response to input 2 Got it - thanks for following up. Once a returned item is received at the warehouse, it goes through an inspection first. After it passes inspection, refunds are issued to the original payment method. Typical timing: Credit/debit card: about 5-7 business days after inspection; PayPal: about 3-5 business days after inspection. So the total timing depends on when the item arrives and finishes inspection. If you want, you can also share when you sent it back and I can help you estimate where it might be in the timeline.
Transcribed from Proof 1 · Screen recording at 0:28
Transcribed from Proof 1 · Screen recording at 0:40
| ✓ | Expected: Continues the return thread without the customer repeating the detailsFound: The reopened thread kept the earlier messages visible, and the follow-up answer stayed on the return without asking again for the order number or item. |
It is a pass because the earlier return reopened in the same thread and the follow-up stayed on the return without asking for the order number or item again.
Continued return topic. The follow-up reply stayed on the return and did not repeat the order number or the sofa.
Reset control visible. A reset-chat control was visible in the chat header.
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.
How this scenario is graded
How we decide Pass, Fail and Not gradable. The same rules apply to every tool tested on this scenario.
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.
- 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.
| Level | Name | Scope |
|---|---|---|
| Benchmark | AI Customer Support Chatbots → | 26 scenarios · 14 tools |
| Capability | Conversation continuity → | |
| Scenario | Earlier conversation/session needs to be continued → | |
| Tool | Intercom Fin → |
Global scenario definition → · Global capability definition → · Intercom Fin product page →
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.
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.
You run the same kind of test against your own setup and get the same behaviour.
Agree →Yours behaves differently. Tell us what you got, with a screenshot if you have one.
Disagree →Something here is wrong — a reference value, a transcription, a grade.
Report an issue →Tell us what changed and we schedule a rerun of the failing test case. The old result stays as history.
Vendor notice →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.