AI Demos Research — the structured-intelligence platform. Every verdict on these pages opens to the execution behind it.
Graded 30 October 2026

Can Anomaly AI answer questions when a user's wording differs from stored values?

Anomaly AI interpreted gift vouchers as gift-card payments and returned the matching orders. It listed 14 orders against a reference count of 14, including two cancelled orders.

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.

Category asked by the user's synonymPassEvidence
What we sent

“Show me all orders paid with a gift voucher.”

What the tool returned

Found 14 orders paid with a gift voucher, recorded as gift-card payments. The full list is shown newest first and includes cancelled orders. Data is current as of October 30, 2026, 11:21 AM your local time.

Transcribed from Proof 1 · Screen recording at 0:21

Every message the tool sent, in order (2)
  1. Generated SQL · not part of the answer
    SELECT COUNT(DISTINCT o."id") AS "value" FROM "orders" o WHERE o."payment_method" = 'gift_card'
  2. Answer

    The final response, printed above.

Expected vs. Found
✓Expected: Return the 14 matching gift-card orders when asked for gift-voucher orders, rather than an empty answer.Found: It returned 14 orders; the reference count was 14 gift-card orders. The table showed order numbers, local dates, statuses, amounts and gift-card payments throughout the visible rows.
Supporting proof
Proof 1Screen recording
Screen recording: the gift-voucher question, generated query, answer and order table
Key moments
Open original ↗
Why this result

The request required matching orders, not an empty answer. With no synonym mapping supplied, Anomaly AI identified the stored category, explained its interpretation and returned an order list rather than just a count.

Tested by Ayush Ghosh · evidence dated 30 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
Anomaly AI
Build or version
Not exposed by the hosted product
Surface
Web app
Set up before the run
The question asked for orders paid with gift vouchers; their payment method had to be stored as gift cards, without any synonym mapping in the environment.
Plan
Pro
Time zone
Asia/Calcutta
Tested
30 October 2026 · Ayush Ghosh

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
10 November 2026First publishedAI Database Agents 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-database-agents/results/anomaly-ai/the-users-wording-doesnt-match-how-the-values-are-stored · 1 pass · 0 fail · coverage 1/1 · graded 2026-10-30

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 recording1ec220059f6bf9019142cc8ae28c223571700ebc066ca3e45efba36a83e63403