Can FutureSmart Database Agent handle a customer correcting information given earlier?
FutureSmart Database Agent answered the correction with June only. It reported 20 orders, used June-only SQL, and did not carry forward the July answer.
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.”
The tool's reply is shown in the evidence under Proofs.
Response 1 replies to Input 1.
Response 2 replies to Input 2.
Response to input 1 We received 21 orders between July 1 2026 and July 31 2026. Response to input 2 We received 20 orders between June 1 2026 and June 30 2026.
Transcribed from Proof 1 · Screenshot
Transcribed from Proof 2 · Screenshot
| ✓ | Expected: Answer only the corrected period, not both periods or the original one.Found: It answered June only: 20 orders, June-only SQL, and one row; the July answer was not carried forward. |
The customer corrected July to June, and the product switched to the June window only: 20 orders, June-only SQL, one row. The earlier July count stayed separate, so it did not answer both periods together.
Generic column labels. Both tables used a generic column label instead of a meaningful count name.
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 | FutureSmart Database Agent → |
Global scenario definition → · Global capability definition → · FutureSmart Database Agent 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.