Can Draxlr ask for clarification when a follow-up is ambiguous?
Draxlr did not ask for clarification when the follow-up was ambiguous. After the first reply produced two plausible customer sets, the second reply answered directly and the transcript shows no clarifying question, option prompt, or disambiguation before it.
1 of 1 test case failed
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.
"Compare them" with two candidate setsFailEvidence
Input 1 · Initial comparison request: “Compare our top 3 customers by order count against our top 3 customers by total spend.”
Input 2 · Follow-up 'Compare them': “Compare them.”
Response 1 answers Input 1.
Response 2, the final response, answers Input 2.
At every rank, the customers are different between the top 3 by order count and top 3 by total spend. The order-count top 3 have 74 orders and $55,093.09 spend; the spend top 3 have 69 orders and $64,815.45 spend. This covers all time.
Transcribed from Proof 1 · Screen recording at 0:15
Every message the tool sent, in order (2)
- Answer with both top 3 lists
Only Jae-won Park appears in both top 3 lists: 24 orders and $19,007.14 total spend. Top 3 by order count: Wei Zhang (26), Jae-won Park (24), Rosa Delgado (24). Top 3 by total spend: Dev Raghavan ($24,210.69), Priya Raghavan ($21,597.62), Jae-won Park ($19,007.14). This covers all time and includes only customers with at least one order.
- Answer to 'Compare them'
The final response, printed above.
| ✗ | Expected: Asks which comparison is meant instead of choosing one silently.Found: It answered with a rank-by-rank comparison and never asked which comparison was meant. |
The case required a clarification request, not a silent choice. The transcript shows the second reply going straight to a rank-by-rank comparison with no clarifying question or prompt, even though the first reply left two plausible referents.
Different lists were shown. The first answer named different customers in the order-count and spend top 3 lists, so the follow-up had more than one possible referent.
No prompt appeared. The second answer appeared immediately after the follow-up, with no clarifying question or disambiguation prompt in between.
Credits stayed visible. The recording still showed 73 of 100 credits remaining.
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 | The follow-up is ambiguous → | |
| Tool | Draxlr → |
Global scenario definition → · Global capability definition → · Draxlr 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.