AI Demos Research — the structured-intelligence platform. Every verdict on these pages opens to the execution behind it.
Graded 23 October 2026

Can FutureSmart Document Intelligence recognize when retrieved material doesn't support an answer?

FutureSmart Document Intelligence declined to answer the unsupported paid parental leave question and gave no paid-leave figure. Its reply said the employee handbook did not specify any paid parental leave entitlement, and retrieval returned 27 sections with a top score of 1.0000.

1 of 1 test case passed

Every test case in this scenario has a result.

Pass rate100%1 of 1 gradable
Coverage1 of 1test case with a result
1PassDid everything it was expected to do.
0FailNo test case failed.
0Not gradableEvery result here could be graded.
0UntestedEvery test case in this scenario has a result.
The pass rate is a summary. The evidence is the test case below: what we sent, what we checked, what the tool returned, and the proof.

The test case

Each test case is judged on its own: Pass, Fail, Not gradable, or Untested. The scenario result above counts this row.

Answer generated when the material does not support onePassEvidence
What we sent

“How much paid parental leave does Fenwake give?”

What the tool returned
Text
The retrieved employee handbook does not specify any paid parental leave entitlement.

Plain-text chat record: the request, decline, and retrieved sections

Copied from Output file (text), lines 6–9 · an excerpt

Open the whole text file ↗

Source excerpt · partial file · response 1

Text
status: 200

answer:
The retrieved employee handbook does not specify any paid parental leave entitlement.

Copied from Output file (text), lines 6–9 · an excerpt

Expected vs. Found
✓Expected: The answer should say the material does not cover paid parental leave.Found: It said the handbook did not specify any paid parental leave entitlement and gave no amount or policy.
Supporting proof
Proof 1Screenshot
Notebook screenshot: the request, decline, and retrieved sections
The tool’s response is printed above, under What the tool returned. Show this screenshotOpen original ↗
Why this result

It had to say the material did not answer the leave question. It did: the reply gave no paid-leave amount and said the employee handbook did not specify any entitlement, even though retrieval returned 27 sections with a top score of 1.0000.

Also observed on this row

Handbook-specific reply. It named the retrieved employee handbook rather than the whole set, but still declined and gave no figure.

Tested by Vivek Tomar · evidence dated 7 September 2026

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.

Software that produced the output
FutureSmart Document Intelligence
Build or version
v1
Surface
API
Set up before the run
We used the shared document set that did not answer the question, and we asked that question on the answer surface while capturing the reply and the retrieved passages.
Tested
7 September 2026 · Vivek Tomar

How this scenario is graded

How we decide Pass, Fail and Not gradable. The same rules apply to every tool tested on this scenario.

How results are decided

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.

The rules
  • 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.

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.

from the publication record
23 October 2026First publishedManaged RAG v1

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.

This matches what I see

You run the same kind of test against your own setup and get the same behaviour.

Agree →
This does not match

Yours behaves differently. Tell us what you got, with a screenshot if you have one.

Disagree →
Point out an issue

Something here is wrong — a reference value, a transcription, a grade.

Report an issue →
Request a retest

On a newer build, a larger dataset, or your own setup.

Request a retest →
We have fixed this

Tell us what changed and we schedule a rerun of the failing test case. The old result stays as history.

Vendor notice →
Filed against this evidenceNothing yet. Challenges, counter-evidence and fix notices appear here with their outcome, and stay on the page after they are resolved.
Cite this result
aidemos.com/benchmarks/managed-rag/results/futuresmart-document-intelligence/unsupported-answer · 1 pass · 0 fail · coverage 1/1 · graded 2026-10-23

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.

Proof 1 · Screenshot ↗image/png · 354 KB
Output file (text) ↗text/plain; charset=utf-8 · 36 KB
File fingerprints (SHA-256)

A fingerprint identifies the exact file used for this result.

Proof 1 · Screenshot77ca8824c2bafa797e937718bb14b436ff17def9a7684161bd7cda7d9ca12a30
Output file (text)add0459a0b6c50d7ec16152bd4c176fe9c8d1a7b0a9797092bd571379a0a9147