Can Dot find a complained-about exchange from rough time and account?
Dot can find a complained-about exchange from a rough time and the member who asked it, then open it for inspection. It locates the chat in History by user and time, narrows it with a membership search, and shows the question and 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.
Find a complained-about exchangePassEvidence
“What membership tier is Alice Prosser on?”
I can't determine Alice Prosser's membership tier: the connected customer data has no membership-tier field. I've flagged the missing data for review.
Transcribed from Proof 1 · Screen recording at 0:32
| ✓ | Expected: The specific exchange can be found and opened, with the question asked and the response shown.Found: Located from the member and rough time; the search returns 2 chats and the user column picks the right one, then it opens to show the question, reply, and logs. |
It passes because the case needs a complaint-style exchange found from rough time and who asked it, and the product finds the chat in History, narrows it by search, and opens it with the question and reply.
Full chat access. The admin can open another workspace member's chat in full, including the reasoning log, without signing in as that member.
Issue marker. Dot marks the chat as an issue in History, helping surface complaint candidates.
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 | Analytics & Observability → | |
| Scenario | A user reports a bad answer and the operator has to find it → | |
| 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.