Can FutureSmart Document Intelligence extract repeated records?
FutureSmart Document Intelligence passed this repeated-set case. It returned three line items with the right descriptions, quantities, unit prices, and amounts in the right rows; item code was requested but missing from every record.
1 of 1 test case passed
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 counts this row.
Repeated set with correct associationPassEvidence
{ "summary": "This document is an invoice from Harrowgate Industrial Supplies Ltd to Fenwick Water Treatment Ltd for the supply of dosing and chemical-feed equipment. It includes a delivery note confirming the receipt of the items on 18 February 2026.", "document_type": "invoice", "line_items": [ { "amount": 680, "quantity": 2, "unit_price": 340, "description": "Dosing pump, 240V" }, { "amount": 144, "quantity": 3, "unit_price": 48, "description": "Chemical feed tubing, 10m coil" }, { "amount": 215, "quantity": 1, "unit_price": 215, "description": "Inline flow sensor" } ], "currency": "GBP", "file_name": "invoice_HIS-4402_-_Digital_Scanned_Digital.pdf" }
JSON output: three line items with matching values
Copied from Output file (JSON), lines 1–26
Open the JSON file ↗| ✓ | Expected: Every record, correct values, correct association; nothing dropped, duplicated, or bound to the wrong record.Found: Three line items were returned, each matching its own row for description, quantity, unit price, and amount; item code was missing from every record. |
The tool’s response is printed above, under What the tool returned. Show this screenshot
Open original ↗The case passes because the three returned rows match the three line items in value and row position. Item code was requested but missing from every row, and that is a completeness gap rather than an association error.
Missing item code. Every returned line item lacked item code.
Image-only page. The second page was image-only and did not affect this repeated-set case; the goods table was on page 3.
No item code appeared in any line item.
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 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.
| Level | Name | Scope |
|---|---|---|
| Benchmark | Structured Document Extraction → | 19 scenarios · 10 tools |
| Capability | Nested & Repeated Fields → | |
| Scenario | A repeated set of records → | |
| Tool | FutureSmart Document Intelligence → |
Global scenario definition → · Global capability definition →
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.