AI Demos Research — the structured-intelligence platform. Every verdict on these pages opens to the execution behind it.
Graded 2 November 2026

Can PyMuPDF4LLM keep code as fenced Markdown with its structure intact?

PyMuPDF4LLM keeps the function as fenced Markdown with its line breaks and indentation intact. The function appears in its own fence with eight code lines and no tabs; the import line is fenced separately, and the blank lines before the loop and return are omitted.

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 is based on this test case.

Code block — fenced, structure intactPassEvidence
What we sent
InputDocument (PDF)
Source PDF with the code block and surrounding prose
Open the PDF ↗
What the tool returned
Markdownthe whole file · cited lines 33–35 and 37–46 marked
**Tarnbeck Institute of Hydrology  ·  Data Services** 

# **Reloading a station export after a gauge reset** 

Operations note DS/OP/07  ·  Data services  ·  Reviewed 14 January 2026 

## **Symptoms** 

The station's daily total is short and the loader's own log says nothing is wrong. In the log the day looks like a clean run: the export was fetched, every block was read, and the summary line reports fewer readings than the station's counter did. The gap is always at the end of the day rather than the beginning, and it is always a whole number of blocks. 

The other sign is a duplicate warning in the block log, with two entries carrying the same sequence number and different checksums. One warning is normal after a reset. A run of them means the reset happened part way through the day and everything after it is being rejected block by block. 

## **Why the loader rejects the second block** 

Block sequence numbers come from the station and not from the loader. The loader keeps the highest number it has committed for the day and treats anything at or below it as a repeat, which is the right thing to do on a poor link: a station that retransmits sends the same block twice, and the loader must not count it twice. 

A reset returns the counter to zero, so the blocks after it carry sequence numbers the loader has already committed. Nothing about them looks new and the loader discards them for exactly the reason it should. The reset time is the only thing that distinguishes a continuation from a repeat, and the loader does not know it unless it is told. 

## **The fix** 

When a gauge is reset in the field the station's counter returns to zero, and the export for that day contains two blocks carrying the same sequence number. The loader accepts the first and rejects the second. That is the right behaviour for a duplicated transmission and the wrong behaviour here, and the day's record ends up short by however much arrived after the reset. 

The fix is to requeue the affected blocks with the reset time supplied, so that the loader treats the second block as a continuation rather than a repeat. The function below is the one to call. It lives in `tarnbeck.stations.maintenance` and is safe to run more than once: a block that already carries a good checksum is skipped. 

Page 1 of 3 

DS/OP/07  ·  Data services 

Tarnbeck Institute of Hydrology  ·  Data Services 

DS/OP/07 

```
from tarnbeck.stations import Export, reload_window
```

```
def reload_after_reset(station, reset_at):
    export = Export.open(station)
    window = reload_window(reset_at, margin_minutes=45)
    for block in export.blocks(window):
        if block.checksum_ok():
            continue
        export.requeue(block, reason="gauge reset")
    return export.commit(dry_run=False)
```

Run it from the loader host and not from a workstation, and take the reset time from the field log rather than from the station clock, which is the thing that was wrong. The margin defaults to forty-five minutes either side of the reset; widen it only if the field log is vague about the time, because a wide window requeues blocks that were never in doubt. 

If `commit` returns a count lower than the number of blocks in the window, stop there and raise it with data services before running anything again. A short count means blocks were rejected for a second reason, and requeuing them repeatedly will not find out what it was. 

## **Running it** 

Run it from the loader host, in the maintenance environment, with the station code and the reset time as they appear in the field log: 

```
$ ssh loader-01.tarnbeck.example
$ tarnbeck-maint reload-after-reset --station VQ1 \
      --reset-at '2026-01-29T09:15' --confirm
```

The command prints the window it will use, the number of blocks in it and the number it intends to requeue, and then waits. Read the three numbers before answering. If the window is wider than the field log justifies, stop and narrow it rather than letting it run. 

Without `--confirm` the command does everything except commit, which is the safe way to see what it would do. The dry run takes a few seconds and there is no reason to skip it. 

## **Afterwards** 

Check the day's totals against the gauge's own counter before closing the ticket. The loader reports the number of blocks committed and not the number of readings, and a day can come back with the right number of blocks and the wrong number of readings if a block was truncated in the field. 

Note the reset in the station log, with the time taken from the field log and not the time the reload ran. The next person to look at a gap in the series will look there first, and a reload with nothing written beside it is indistinguishable from a gap nobody has dealt with. 

Page 2 of 3 

DS/OP/07  ·  Data services 

Tarnbeck Institute of Hydrology  ·  Data Services 

DS/OP/07 

## **If the count is short** 

A short count means blocks were rejected for a second reason and the reload has not found out what it was. Do not run it again: a second pass requeues the same blocks, reports the same count, and fills the log with attempts that bury the original failure. 

Take the sequence numbers the command reports as rejected and look them up in the block log. A checksum failure on a block truncated in the field cannot be fixed by reloading and needs the station visited. A rejection with no reason recorded is a loader fault, and goes to data services with the run's log attached. 

## **The block header, for reference** 

Each block in an export begins with a fixed header, which is what the loader reads to decide whether it has seen the block before: 

```
SEQ=00184 STATION=VQ1 START=2026-01-29T08:45Z
COUNT=0180 INTERVAL=15s CRC=8f2a41d6
```

SEQ is the station's counter and is the field a reset returns to zero. START is the station clock, which is not to be trusted after a reset - which is why the reset time comes from the field log and not from the export. 

CRC covers the readings and not the header, so a block with a good checksum and a wrong sequence number is possible and is exactly what a reset produces. Nothing in the header says a reset happened. 

## **Rolling back** 

A committed reload can be undone within the same day by reverting the station's day to the snapshot the loader takes before it commits. The snapshot is kept for seven days and is named for the run. 

After seven days the only route back is a fresh fetch of the export from the station, which is possible while the station's own buffer still holds the day - about three weeks - and impossible afterwards. A reload that has committed and cannot be rolled back is an incident and is raised as one, whatever the size of the gap. 

Page 3 of 3 

DS/OP/07  ·  Data services 

Markdown output with fenced code blocks and preserved nesting

Copied from Output file (Markdown), lines 33–35, 37–46

Open the Markdown file ↗
Expected vs. Found
✓Expected: Code is emitted as a fenced block with line breaks and indentation intactFound: The function sits in its own fence with eight lines, preserved nesting, and no tabs; the source page shows the same layout.
Supporting proof
Proof 1Screenshot
Evidence image with console log, Markdown excerpt, and source page
Open original ↗
Why this result

It is a Pass, not a Fail: the function stays fenced, keeps its eight-line order and indentation, and has no tabs, while the source page shows the same layout.

Also observed in this test case

Split fence. The import line is fenced separately from the function.

Dropped blanks. The fenced function keeps the code lines, but the blank lines before the loop and return are omitted.

Tested by Vamshidhar Rao Thumula · evidence dated 24 October 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
PyMuPDF4LLM
Build or version
PyMuPDF4LLM 1.28.2
Surface
SDK / library
Set up before the run
A complete PDF with a code block had to be converted to Markdown in one default pass, with no per-tool flag tuning and the full file sent each time.
Call
pymupdf4llm.to_markdown('Operations note DS-OP-07.pdf')
Library versions
pymupdf4llm 1.28.2
Configuration
Default: the path as the only argument, no flags
Tested
24 October 2026 · Vamshidhar Rao Thumula

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 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.

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
3 November 2026First publishedConverting a complex PDF into clean Markdown with an open-source library 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-open-source/results/pymupdf4llm/a-document-containing-a-code-block · 1 pass · 0 fail · coverage 1/1 · graded 2026-11-02

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 · 78 KB
Output file (Markdown) ↗text/markdown; charset=utf-8 · 7 KB
Proof 1 · Screenshot ↗image/png · 156 KB
File fingerprints (SHA-256)

A fingerprint identifies the exact file used for this result.

Input · Document (PDF)cd27d1e77ec9818ff769bde1b49d95e711373888507af4b007054c27b7a52db8
Output file (Markdown)0c472027c451eb1fd6e35f4a236edebe20a6d44518877c55750502a8e061af13
Proof 1 · Screenshota30c5596c46da669e6052d0ac4c88f242606ba530d1fb3705e22eb8ae482fdab