AI Demos Research — the structured-intelligence platform. Every verdict on these pages opens to the execution behind it.
Graded 27 October 2026

Can Draxlr answer when the needed table is excluded?

Draxlr fails this scenario: when the needed table is excluded, it still answers from another table instead of saying it cannot answer. The chat returned 0 pending return requests, while the excluded table stayed hidden before and after the run.

1 of 1 test case failed

Every test case in this scenario has a result.

Pass rate0%0 of 1 gradable
Coverage1 of 1test case with a result
0PassNo test case passed.
1FailMissed at least one thing it was expected to do; the reason and proof are with each test case below.
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.

Excluded table needed for the answerFailEvidence
What we sent

“How many return requests are still pending review?”

ConfigurationScreenshot
Settings screen: the excluded table is off in AI
Open original ↗
What the tool returned

There are 0 return requests still pending review. This covers all time.

Transcribed from Proof 1 · Screen recording at 0:08

Every message the tool sent, in order (2)
  1. Final response

    The final response, printed above.

  2. Generated query · not part of the answer
    SELECT COUNT(*) AS pending_return_requests FROM public.tickets WHERE reason::text ILIKE '%return%' AND status::text ILIKE '%pending%'
Expected vs. Found
✗Expected: Says it cannot answer and does not use another table as a substitute answer.Found: It used another table and gave a 0 count as the answer instead of saying it could not answer.
Supporting proof
Proof 1Screen recording
Chat run: the answer, SQL, and later settings check
Key moments
Open original ↗
Why this result

The excluded table was hidden from AI, yet the chat still answered from another table and gave a 0 count. It did not say it could not answer, so it substituted other data instead of refusing.

Also observed in this test case

Fallback disclosed. The explanation panel reveals that the answer is based on a filter over support tickets, but the chat answer itself gives no warning.

Zero count shown. The substituted answer is 0, so it reads as a firm negative.

Tested by Ayush Ghosh · evidence dated 27 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
Draxlr
Build or version
Not exposed by the hosted product
Plan or tier
Premium
Model
gpt-5.5-1
Surface
Web app
Set up before the run
The excluded table had to be turned off in the product while the connection role still could read it, with no other path to the answer.
AI inclusion
off
Database connection
Customer support DB
Tested
27 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
7 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/draxlr/an-excluded-table-is-needed-to-answer-the-question · 0 pass · 1 fail · coverage 1/1 · graded 2026-10-27

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.

Configuration · Screenshot48ac08ade06919808014c01885946d047d91111bbbac02b12c93a23f6f62d78d
Proof 1 · Screen recordingf2fe9518516de1ff9ef59f87673f7989789d20e67140a5cfa09af10b63836d68