AI Demos Research — the structured-intelligence platform. Every verdict on these pages opens to the execution behind it.
Graded 26 October 2026

Can FutureSmart Document Intelligence use a supplied definition to resolve which value fits the field name?

FutureSmart Document Intelligence passed this definition-driven extraction case. It returned the consignment reference, not the more prominent invoice number, and the field definition named the consignment reference and excluded the invoice number.

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.

Definition overrides the prominent numberPassEvidence
What we sent
InputDocument (PDF)
Invoice PDF: two candidate values, one repeated prominently
Open the PDF ↗
What the tool returned
JSON
{
  "summary": "This document is an invoice from Calderwood Freight Services to Vantage Retail Distribution for the transport of goods from Leeds to Portsmouth. It confirms the successful delivery of the consignment on March 7, 2026, with no reported damages or exceptions.",
  "document_type": "invoice",
  "reference_number": "CFS-CN-40821"
}

Output JSON: the selected reference number

Copied from Output file (JSON), lines 1–5

Open the JSON file ↗
Expected vs. Found
✓Expected: The value the definition selects; returning the more prominent candidate is the failure.Found: The product returned the consignment reference rather than the more prominent invoice number.
Supporting proof
Proof 1Screen recording
Screen recording: reference_number definition and returned value
Key moments
Open original ↗
Proof 2Screenshot
Results card image: the returned reference number and file name
The tool’s response is printed above, under What the tool returned. Show this screenshotOpen original ↗
Why this result

It passes because the supplied field definition chose the consignment reference, and the product returned that value instead of the more prominent invoice number. The document itself gave no choice rule.

Tested by Rugved nichite · evidence dated 18 September 2026
Limitations of this result

The recording does not show the extraction starting.

The attached image shows the results card, not the field-definition dialog.

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
FutureSmart Document Intelligence
Build or version
Not exposed by the hosted product
Surface
Web app
Set up before the run
A field had two candidates, and the supplied definition chose the less prominent one; no arithmetic was involved.
Reference number definition
The consignment reference number — the identifier tied to the physical shipment. This is NOT the invoice number
Tested
18 September 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.

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
6 October 2026First publishedStructured Document Extraction v1
21 October 2026Taken down
The page left the site; nothing was deleted.
26 October 2026Republished

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/futuresmart-document-intelligence/the-value-needs-a-supplied-definition · 1 pass · 0 fail · coverage 1/1 · graded 2026-10-26

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 · 118 KB
Output file (JSON) ↗application/json · 0 KB
Proof 2 · Screenshot ↗image/png · 65 KB
File fingerprints (SHA-256)

A fingerprint identifies the exact file used for this result.

Input · Document (PDF)1bcc6c7b945956c5b6f5a87d223ed3d578a62aa2c56c5fc1e3abedb4cc4de72e
Output file (JSON)5fd7a0dae458b821b0249bf2d746842bd06781e9e853f12ff142f1b28ed17613
Proof 1 · Screen recording15bc4993c352210a5b51c92a02663058759145ea71dc174a4b1f3344083832f6
Proof 2 · Screenshotd4f35933a600eb13434a363f7fc7d5881de91cef4da1bf1c938b753a80f4a7b3