AI Demos Research — the structured-intelligence platform. Every verdict on these pages opens to the execution behind it.
Graded 7 October 2026

Can Docsumo return nothing for a field that is absent?

Docsumo passed this scenario: it returned an honest null for an absent field instead of inventing a value, and the empty field had no source pointer. In the same run, the receipt number, subtotal, tax, and total stayed correct.

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.

Absent field returns an honest nullPassEvidence
What we sent
InputDocument (PDF)
One-page service receipt with receipt number, date, technician, one item, and totals.
Open the PDF ↗
What the tool returned
JSON1 uncited part folded (…)
{
  "Service Receipt Information": {
    "receipt_number": {
      "value": "RHS-70234",
      "position": [1021, 501, 1131, 529],
      "confidence": 1,
      "review_required": false
    },
    "loyalty_membership_number": {
      "value": "",
      "position": [0, 0, 0, 0],
      "confidence": 0.55,
      "review_required": false
    }
  },
  "Financial Summary": { … }
}

JSON extraction output showing an empty loyalty membership field and populated receipt fields.

Copied from Output file (JSON), lines 1–61

Open the JSON file ↗
Expected vs. Found
✓Expected: An honest null, not an invented value, with no source pointer attached to it.Found: Docsumo returned a blank value with confidence 0.55 and a zeroed source box.
Supporting proof
Proof 1Screenshot
Results panel beside the receipt, with an empty loyalty membership field and matching totals.
Open original ↗
Why this result

The added field asked for a loyalty membership number that the receipt did not contain. Docsumo returned an empty value with no source region, while the other receipt fields stayed correct.

Also observed on this row

Empty field confidence. The empty field was given lower confidence than the filled fields, so the product marked it as less certain.

Tested by Rugved nichite

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
Docsumo
Build or version
Not exposed by the hosted product
Surface
Web app
Set up before the run
The baseline receipt stayed unchanged. One extra field was added asking for a fact the receipt does not contain or imply.
Added field
loyalty_membership_number
Account plan
Free Plan
Tested
By 5 October 2026 · Rugved nichite

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.

LevelNameScope
BenchmarkStructured Document Extraction →19 scenarios · 10 tools
CapabilityField Extraction →
CapabilitySource Grounding →
ScenarioThe field is absent →
ToolDocsumo →

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
14 October 2026First publishedStructured Document Extraction 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/structured-document-extraction/results/docsumo/the-field-is-absent · 1 pass · 0 fail · coverage 1/1 · graded 2026-10-07

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 · 54 KB
Proof 1 · Screenshot ↗image/png · 132 KB
Output file (JSON) ↗text/plain; charset=utf-8 · 1 KB
File fingerprints (SHA-256)

A fingerprint identifies the exact file used for this result.

Input · Document (PDF)a96bbe1c5b22336e7b54169baf72b85e45eabf1312cd293a1821017b52fa85f7
Proof 1 · Screenshoted9c7408a81358ccc7fefd3ca427ba1adeb6db933218a73668c0c24944a9fb54
Output file (JSON)5606659ff5c2e002700f1dda4ab058e073a69686c1651a9e5353f0e215944f9c