AI Demos Research — the structured-intelligence platform. Every verdict on these pages opens to the execution behind it.
Graded 28 September 2026

Can Reducto preserve styled headings and subheadings as nested Markdown heading levels?

Reducto flattened the heading structure in the Markdown output. The file contains one "#", 26 "##" headings, and no deeper levels; the document title is plain paragraph text. The two visible parent/child pairs were emitted as peers, so the nesting expected for styled headings and subheadings was not preserved.

1 of 1 test case failed

Every test case in this scenario has a result.

Pass rate0%0 of 1 gradable
Coverage1 of 1test case with a result
0PassNo test case passed.
1FailMissed at least one thing it was expected to do; the reason and proof are on the row.
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.

Styled headings — hierarchy preservedFailEvidence
What we sent
InputDocument (PDF)
3-page source PDF with a text layer, styled headings, and body text under them. From outside the graded run; shown for context, not graded.
Open the PDF ↗
Key momentsp. 1, 2 ↗
What the tool returned
Markdown
# Kirkhollow Analytical Laboratories Ltd

Sample Reception and Handling

Procedure KAL-SP-06 · Revision 4 · Effective 1 March 2026

## Scope

This procedure covers the receipt, identification, storage and disposal of samples submitted to the laboratory for chemical analysis. It applies to everything received at the Braithe Road reception, including samples delivered by courier and samples brought in by clients. It does not cover samples taken by our own field staff, which are dealt with in KAL-SP-11.

## Reception

Samples are received at reception between 08:00 and 17:30 on weekdays and between 09:00 and 12:00 on Saturdays. Outside those hours clients who hold a key may use the refrigerated drop box at the rear entrance.

## Chain of custody

Every delivery arrives with a completed submission form. Reception staff check that the form is signed, that the number of containers matches the number listed on it, and that each container carries a legible client reference. The form is signed and timed on receipt and the top copy is returned to the person making the delivery.

## Condition on arrival

Reception staff record the condition of each container on the submission form before it leaves the reception bench. Anything recorded there that falls outside the limits below goes to the duty chemist before the sample is booked in.

## Temperature

Chilled samples. Where the submission form specifies chilled transport, the temperature of the transport box is measured and written on the form. A box above 8 degrees is accepted, marked, and referred to the duty chemist, who decides whether the analysis can still be reported. A box above 15 degrees is not accepted for microbiological work at all.

## Container integrity

Containers that are cracked, leaking, or filled above the shoulder are photographed on the reception bench and set aside, and the client is telephoned the same day. A leaking container is not opened at reception.

## Storage

## Refrigerated storage

Samples for chemical analysis are held at 4 degrees in the reception cold room and are racked by the day of receipt, not by client. Racks are cleared every Friday afternoon.

## Frozen storage

Samples that require frozen storage are held at minus 20 degrees in the chest freezer in room 4. Nothing goes into the freezer without a completed freezer label, and nothing is stacked above the load line marked inside the cabinet.

## Retention and disposal

Analysed samples are kept for twenty-eight days after the report is issued and are then disposed of by the route set out in KAL-SP-19. Samples held longer at a client's request are labelled with the agreed retention date and reviewed monthly by the laboratory manager.

## Records

Submission forms, condition records and the reception log are kept for six years. The reception log is a bound book: entries are not erased, and a correction is made by a single line through the original, initialled and dated.

## Responsibilities

The laboratory manager owns this procedure. Reception staff carry it out; the duty chemist decides anything it refers to them; and the quality manager audits it twice a year against the reception log and the submission forms.

## Reception staff

Reception staff check every delivery against its form, record the condition of each container, book the submission in, and put the samples into the right storage within thirty minutes of accepting them. They do not decide whether a sample outside the limits above can be analysed, and they are not asked to.

## The duty chemist

The duty chemist is named on the board in reception for each working day. They decide whether a sample that arrived outside the limits can be reported and on what terms, record the decision on the submission form and initial it, and tell the client where the decision changes what the report will say.

## Identification and booking in

## The laboratory number

Markdown output with one top-level heading and 26 second-level headings; no deeper levels appear. From outside the graded run; shown for context, not graded.

Copied from Output file (Markdown), lines 1–63 · an excerpt

Open the whole Markdown file ↗
Expected vs. Found
What this scenario evaluates

These are scenario-level criteria. Each test case's Expected and Found are listed separately.

  • Whether headings are emitted as Markdown heading levels rather than plain or bold paragraphs.
  • Whether nested headings keep their parent-child hierarchy intact.
  • Whether the document’s organisation remains visibly structured instead of flattening to one level.
How this scenario is judged →
✗Found: Headings were converted, but the hierarchy collapsed to one # and 26 ## headings.
Supporting proof
Proof 1Screenshot
Run metadata card showing a successful 3-page default-parse run on the full PDF.
Open original ↗
Why this result

The conversion kept headings as Markdown, but it flattened the hierarchy to one top-level heading and 26 second-level headings, so nesting was lost.

Also observed on this row

Adobe contrast. A contrasting Adobe PDF Extract run on the same fixture kept three levels and nested both pairs, showing the flattening came from this tool.

No typography metadata. The source PDF has no section numbering or usable font-size metadata in its text layer, so adjacent headings are the strongest level cue.

Tested by Chandresh Bisht · evidence dated 9 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
Reducto
Build or version
not exposed (server build not reported; server-default model)
Plan or tier
Standard self-serve plan
Model
not exposed (server build not reported; server-default model)
Surface
RUN METADATA · Reducto TC29 card
Set up before the run
A short PDF with styled headings and subheadings was converted to Markdown from the complete file in one default pass, with the heading levels staying nested.
parse pipeline
default parse pipeline
pass mode
single pass
flag tuning
no per-tool flag tuning
configuration overrides
no configuration overrides
rule
default pipeline
mode
single pass
per-tool flag tuning
no per-tool flag tuning
pipeline
default parse pipeline
Tested
9 September 2026 · Chandresh Bisht

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
5 October 2026First publishedConverting a complex PDF into clean Markdown with a hosted API 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/pdf-to-markdown-apis/results/reducto/a-document-with-styled-headings-and-subheadings · 0 pass · 1 fail · coverage 1/1 · graded 2026-09-28

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.

Input · Document (PDF) ↗application/pdf · 43 KB
Proof 1 · Screenshot ↗image/png · 55 KB
Output file (Markdown) ↗text/markdown · 7 KB
File fingerprints (SHA-256)

A fingerprint identifies the exact file used for this result.

Input · Document (PDF)1d53151023b44fca82503e6e748e2a1bed0b2374f54d2dc2d10279009401f34d
Proof 1 · Screenshotb1463a73abd07bf88f7d6d980c6cbd0256eaf0a8044245e3b88ae468c55fdaf1
Output file (Markdown)b84f64a6d9891b4c4b48cf78578dd8081b45db9a95dff45bf78fefed7bd9ec92