Does Dot update its answer when a customer corrects earlier information?
Dot updated its answer when the customer corrected July to June. The corrected reply gave 11 June orders and the query limited the count to June; the earlier July turn was 18 against a reference of 19 and was not the graded one.
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.
Corrected period replaces the originalPassEvidence
Input 1: “How many orders did we get in July 2026?”
Input 2: “Sorry, I meant June 2026.”
Response 1 answers Input 1.
Response 2 answers Input 1.
Response 3, the final response, answers Input 2.
Response 4 is the query the tool generated for Input 2; it is not part of the answer.
We received 11 orders in June 2026 in the customer-support database, including all statuses ¹.
Transcribed from Proof 2 · Screenshot
Every message the tool sent, in order (4)
- Response to input 1 (message 1 of 2)
We received 18 orders in July 2026 in the customer-support database, including all statuses ¹.
- Response to input 1 (message 2 of 2)
The separate order-tracking database is disconnected, so I couldn't check it. I flagged the connection for review:
- Final response
The final response, printed above.
- Generated query for input 2 · not part of the answer
SELECT COUNT(*) AS total_orders FROM customer_support_db.public.orders WHERE placed_at ≥ '2026-06-01 00:00:00+00' AND placed_at < '2026-07-01 00:00:00+00'
| ✓ | Expected: Use the corrected period only, not the original or both together.Found: Dot answered 11 June orders only; the query covered June alone and excluded July. |
The corrected reply had to replace July with June alone. Dot answered 11 June orders, and the query bounded the count to June, so it did not keep July or combine periods.
June match. The corrected June answer matched the reference count exactly.
July shortfall. The first July answer was one lower than the reference count and came on the earlier turn.
Disconnected database. Dot said the order-tracking database was disconnected and flagged the gap in a draft proposal.
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 | Conversational Interaction → | |
| Scenario | Customer corrects information given earlier → | |
| Tool | Dot → |
Global scenario definition → · Global capability definition → · Dot 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.