Can BlazeSQL combine several findings into one report?
BlazeSQL passed this one-report task. The combined table kept the earlier revenue, category, and cancellation answers intact, with the same values and bases, and brought all five metrics into one report.
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.
Three findings assembled into one artifactPassEvidence
Input 1: “As of September 2, 2026, what was our total revenue last month?”
Input 2: “What's our best-selling product category?”
Input 3: “What's our current cancellation rate?”
Input 4: “Put all of that together into one report.”
The tool's reply is shown in the evidence under Proofs.
Response 1 replies to Input 1.
Response 2 replies to Input 2.
Response 3 replies to Input 3.
Response 4 replies to Input 4.
Response to input 1 August 2026 total revenue came in at $23,414.43 across 37 orders. Response to input 2 Outdoor & Patio leads with the most units sold, followed by Bedding & Rugs and Storage & Organization. Response to input 3 Here's a fuller picture of cancellation rates: Order cancellation rate (all-time): 21.97% | Order cancellation rate (last 30 days): 21.02% - fairly consistent with the all-time rate | Subscription cancellation rate: 14.29% - though the subscription sample size is very small (only 7), so treat this with caution Response to input 4 There's your consolidated summary report! All 5 metrics are combined into a single clean table.
Transcribed from Proof 1 · Screenshot
Transcribed from Proof 2 · Screenshot
Transcribed from Proof 3 · Screenshot
Transcribed from Proof 4 · Screenshot
| ✓ | Expected: A single report that keeps each answer aligned with the question it came from.Found: The report combined all five metrics, and each one matched the earlier value and basis. |
It is a pass because the combined report still matched the separate answers: revenue, category, and the three cancellation rates kept their earlier values, labels, and stated basis when brought into one table.
Date window added. The combined table kept the same cancellation rate and added a date window beside the last-30-days measure.
Three rates shown. The product expanded the cancellation answer into three labeled rates and marked the subscription sample as small.
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 Database Agents → | 28 scenarios · 11 tools |
| Capability | Reporting → | |
| Scenario | The user wants several findings in one place → | |
| Tool | BlazeSQL → |
Global scenario definition → · Global capability definition → · BlazeSQL 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.