Scenario in benchmark · Version 1

The request uses different wording than the source

A request uses wording different from the source, but the system must still resolve the same underlying fact or passage.

How the tools performed

Every in-scope tool is visible. Outcomes come from current published Results for this scenario and benchmark version.

Publication availability: 1 tool has a current published Result.

No published result does not tell you whether a tool has been tested. Test coverage is shown only for comparable published Results.

ToolPublished outcomesTest coverageResult
Published Results · alphabetical, not ranked
FutureSmart Document Intelligence
1 Pass0 Fail0 Not gradable
1 of 1 test case passed
1 of 1 assessed1 of 1 gradableView Result →
No published result · alphabetical
Denser AI——No published result
Dify——No published result
Llama Cloud——No published result
Onyx——No published result
Vectara——No published result
Vectorize.io——No published result

Assessed = Pass + Fail + Not gradable. Gradable = Pass + Fail. Both use the published Result’s pinned-test denominator. — means not publicly available.

Test design

Pinned test cases
1
Disclosure
0 public · 1 withheld
Capabilities exercised here
Retrieval

What this scenario evaluates

  • Whether the system recognises the same underlying fact or passage despite different wording.
  • Whether it relies on meaning rather than an exact phrase match.
  • Whether it still resolves the correct source when the request is paraphrased.
  • Whether it treats different wording as equivalent when the underlying meaning is the same.

Specific test-case inputs and grading live on the related test-case pages.

How the results are graded

  • Pass: the test-case expectations hold.
  • Fail: an expectation demonstrably does not hold.
  • Not gradable: the evidence cannot establish the outcome.

Version 1 uses test-case expectations; no scenario rubric is pinned.

Benchmark methodology →
The request uses different wording than the source in Managed RAG | AI Demos