Can Denser AI find new content added to a source?
Denser AI returned a fact from newly added content after the source was refreshed. Before the addition, it could not answer the same question; afterwards, it gave the depot opening date and cited the new bulletin.
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.
Document added to the source, then queried after a refreshPassEvidence
Input 1 · Before the bulletin was added: “When does the Tromso depot open?”
The Tromso depot bulletin was added to the sources, and all five sources showed Trained.
Input 2 · After the bulletin was added: “When does the Tromso depot open?”
Response 1 answers Input 1.
Response 2, the final response, answers Input 2.
The Tromso depot opens on 14 October 2026. It will be the third depot in the network and the first located above the Arctic Circle, holding four Tolvan C5 loan units and a full Brannoc spares kit. Once it opens, northern loan requests should be routed directly to the new depot rather than through Bergen. Staffing will consist of one engineer and a shared stores controller, working 07:00 to 15:00 local time, Monday to Friday, though out-of-hours faults will continue to go through the existing duty engineer rota. [1](upload/google_107814369447848734045/chatbots/chatbot_kfzqkplgdlfk5qaw2quh7/lNJFaaM7V1D1RdIheaAt7.pdf PassageID:0)
Transcript: questions, answers and passages before and after the addition
Copied from Captured file (text), lines 84–91
Open the text file ↗Every message the tool sent, in order (2)
- Answer before the addition
I don't have specific information about a Tromsø depot's opening hours in my available sources. The shipping lead times I have cover depots in Aberdeen, Lerwick, Gothenburg, Esbjerg, and Bergen, but Tromsø isn't listed among them. If you need accurate opening hours for a Tromsø depot, I'd recommend checking directly with the depot or the relevant internal contact at Fenwake Instruments Ltd, as this information doesn't appear in the materials I have access to.
- Answer after the addition
The final response, printed above.
| ✓ | Expected: The fact in the newly added document is returned.Found: Denser AI returned the Tromsø depot opening date as 14 October 2026 and cited the new bulletin, which ranked first among the returned passages. |
The new fact needed to become findable. Denser AI could not provide it before the addition, but answered the identical question after the update completed and all five sources showed as trained.
Bulletin ranked first. The new depot bulletin ranked well above the existing passages; the next passage had a reranking score below 0.01.
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 | Knowledge Sync → | |
| Scenario | New content is added to the 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.