Does Denser AI cite text that supports the answer’s claim?
Denser AI traced the answer’s claim to supporting text in the cited passage. The marker landed on the passage with the 90-minute acknowledgement statement and its cover-level note, while the decoy table in another passage was not cited.
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.
Citation opened and read against the claim it supportsPassEvidence
“How quickly does Fenwake acknowledge a Priority 1 fault reported outside business hours?”
A Priority 1 fault reported outside business hours is acknowledged by a named duty engineer within 90 minutes of the ticket being raised. The engineer confirms ownership by telephone and, where the customer asks for it, in writing on the ticket. This target applies regardless of the cover level held — the cover level only determines what happens after acknowledgement, not how quickly the call is answered[1](upload/google_107814369447848734045/chatbots/chatbot_o9ihun9849fcf3tbhigo4/ruM2xi4mokcyDojzyRmgA.pdf PassageID:0).
Plain-text API dump with answer and returned passages
Copied from Captured file (text), lines 13–18 · an excerpt
Open the whole text file ↗Source excerpt · partial file · response 1
A Priority 1 fault reported outside business hours is acknowledged by a named duty engineer within 90 minutes of the ticket being raised. The engineer confirms ownership by telephone and, where the customer asks for it, in writing on the ticket. This target applies regardless of the cover level held — the cover level only determines what happens after acknowledgement, not how quickly the call is answered[1](upload/google_107814369447848734045/chatbots/chatbot_o9ihun9849fcf3tbhigo4/ruM2xi4mok cyDojzyRmgA.pdf PassageID:0).
Copied from Captured file (text), lines 13–18 · an excerpt
| ✓ | Expected: The citation should point to the passage that supports the answer’s actual claim, not merely the same document or topic.Found: It points to the supporting passage, and the decoy table is a different passage. |
It passes because the citation lands on the passage that states the 90-minute acknowledgement and cover-level note, while the 30-minute table is elsewhere.
Source overlap. Six of ten returned passages came from the same source document, so passage-level checking was needed.
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 | Managed RAG → | 15 scenarios · 9 tools |
| Capability | Citations → | |
| Scenario | A claim in the answer traced back to its source → | |
| Tool | Denser AI → |
Global scenario definition → · Global capability definition → · Denser AI 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.