Does FutureSmart Document Intelligence cite answer claims to supporting source text?
FutureSmart Document Intelligence does not link the answer claim to a supporting passage. The chat response had no citation marker or section reference, and the web Conversations view panel listed source files rather than the supporting passage; the top section matched the answer, but a conflicting 30-minute section also appeared.
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 counts this row.
Citation opened and read against the claim it supportsFailEvidence
“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, if requested, in writing on the ticket.
Text capture: the full answer and ranked section list
Copied from Captured file (text), lines 11–12 · an excerpt
Open the whole text file ↗Source excerpt · partial file · response 1
answer: 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, if requested, in writing on the ticket.
Copied from Captured file (text), lines 11–12 · an excerpt
| ✗ | Expected: The citation resolves to a passage that supports the claim the answer made, not just the same document or topic.Found: The answer says 90 minutes and the top section supports that, but no citation marker or section reference links the answer to any passage. |
The tool’s response is printed above, under What the tool returned. Show this screenshot
Open original ↗The tool’s response is printed above, under What the tool returned. Show this screenshot
Open original ↗The answer is correct, but the product never ties that claim to a supporting passage. The chat response shows no citation marker or section reference, and the web view lists source files rather than the passage itself.
Chunk spill. The top match starts with unrelated text before the supporting rule, so the retrieved chunk is wider than the passage that backs the answer.
Conflicting figure. A lower-ranked section shows a 30-minute Priority 1 figure for business hours.
No citation tags. The response returns follow-up suggestions, but no citation markers.
The Conversations-view check came from a separate capture, so the proofs here show the API response only.
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 row says which 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 row 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 · 8 tools |
| Capability | Citations → | |
| Scenario | A claim in the answer traced back to its source → | |
| Tool | FutureSmart Document Intelligence → |
Global scenario definition → · Global capability definition →
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.