Does Nutrient.io keep a simple table formatted correctly?
Nutrient.io failed to keep the simple table intact in the default Build API run. The output kept all values, row count, and row order, but merged the method and turnaround headers and cells.
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 is based on this test case.
Simple table — structure retainedFailEvidence
<th>Determination</th> <th>Method Turnaround</th> <th>Charge per sample</th>
Markdown output: one table with merged method and turnaround cells
Copied from Output file (Markdown), lines 22–24
Open the Markdown file ↗</tr> <tr> <td>Total suspended solids</td> <td>KAL-M04 2 days</td> <td>£18.40</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Chloride</td> <td>KAL-M11 3 days</td> <td>£21.75</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Ammoniacal nitrogen</td> <td>KAL-M12 4 days</td> <td>£26.50</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Total oxidised nitrogen</td> <td>KAL-M13 5 days</td> <td>£29.20</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Orthophosphate</td> <td>KAL-M15 6 days</td> <td>£31.60</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Dissolved organic carbon</td> <td>KAL-M22 7 days</td> <td>£44.05</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Metals suite, eleven elements</td> <td>KAL-M31 8 days</td> <td>£96.80</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Particle size distribution</td> <td>KAL-M47 10 days</td> <td>£58.35</td> </tr>
Copied from Output file (Markdown), lines 25–65
{ "status_code": 200, "headers": { "date": "Wed, 09 Sep 2026 08:52:08 GMT", "content-type": "text/markdown", "content-length": "9225", "content-disposition": "attachment; filename=\"result.md\"", "server": "Cowboy", "x-pspdfkit-remaining-credits": "45", "x-pspdfkit-request-cost": "1", "x-request-id": "GNObBeJvIyP70CUAAPSh" }, "content_type": "text/markdown", "body_bytes": 9225, "delivery": "raw markdown body (content-type text/markdown)", "markdown_chars": 9210, "zip_members": null, "asset_names": null }
HTTP capture: request details and successful Markdown response
Copied from Captured file (JSON), response
Open the whole JSON file ↗| ✗ | Expected: The table stays a table, with the right headers, rows, columns, and values.Found: All values, row order, and row count stayed correct, but the output merged the method and turnaround into one header and one cell per row. |
On the default Build API pipeline, it is a fail, not a pass: the table structure was not intact because method and turnaround were merged into one column, even though values, row count, and row order stayed correct.
Rows preserved. All eight rows and all 32 values were preserved, with row order unchanged.
Other API kept columns. A separate Data Extraction API run returned all four columns and correct headers.
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 | Converting a complex PDF into clean Markdown with a hosted API → | 12 scenarios · 13 tools |
| Capability | Table Extraction → | |
| Scenario | A simple, clearly formatted table → | |
| Tool | Nutrient.io → |
Global scenario definition → · Global capability definition → · Nutrient.io 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.