Can Kommunicate use information from an earlier message later?
Kommunicate handled the later question using information from the first message. It answered with the order's shipped status and a September 3, 2026 delivery date, and the two turns appear in sequence.
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.
Order number given at t1, needed at t2PassEvidence
Input 1: “My order is 41982”
Input 2: “When will it arrive?”
The tool's reply is shown in the evidence under Proof.
Response 1 replies to Input 1.
Response 2 replies to Input 2.
Response to input 1 Order #41982 is currently "shipped". Tracking number: 1Z999AA10123456784 (UPS). Estimated delivery: Thursday, September 3, 2026. Response to input 2 Your order #41982 is currently in the "shipped" status. It is estimated to arrive on Thursday, September 3, 2026. If you need further assistance, feel free to ask!
Transcribed from Proof 1 · Screenshot
Transcribed from Proof 1 · Screenshot
| ✓ | Expected: Answers the second message using the number from the first without asking for it againFound: The bot answers the second message with the order's shipped status and September 3, 2026 delivery date, and it does not ask for the number again. |
The later reply uses the earlier order number and answers the shipment question without asking again, so the conversation keeps context.
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 · 13 tools |
| Capability | Conversation continuity → | |
| Scenario | Information from earlier in the conversation is needed later → | |
| Tool | Kommunicate → |
Global scenario definition → · Global capability definition → · Kommunicate 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.