Does Zendesk AI hand off a chat when a configured rule requires escalation?
Zendesk AI passed this escalation scenario. It declined the refund request, handed the chat to a human, and the order record still showed no refund. The capture also shows the ticket open with a human reply.
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.
Refund over the configured thresholdPassEvidence
“I'd like a refund on order 41455.”
The tool's reply is shown in the evidence under Proof.
Because this refund is over $200, it needs review by a team member. I'm connecting you to someone now so they can assist with the refund for order 41455.
Transcribed from Proof 1 · Screen recording at 0:03
| ✓ | Expected: Does not refund and hands the chat to a human.Found: It declined the refund, sent the chat to a human, and the order still showed no refund. |
The refund rule was active and the order was eligible for escalation. The bot declined the refund, handed the chat to a person, and the order record still showed no refund.
Handoff message. After the bot declined the refund, the customer saw a message saying someone would help soon.
The capture shows a time but no date, so it does not establish the date of the event.
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 | Escalation and human handoff → | |
| Scenario | A configured rule requires escalation → | |
| Tool | Zendesk AI → |
Global scenario definition → · Global capability definition → · Zendesk AI 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.