Can Landing AI turn a clean scan into accurate text?
Landing AI extracted the same values from a scanned invoice as from its digital original. Eight of nine fields were identical, including three line items; the currency was expressed differently but meant pounds sterling in both.
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 is based on this test case.
Image-only twin, same schemaPassEvidence
{ "type": "object", "properties": { "invoice_number": { "type": "string", "description": "The invoice number" }, "bill_to": { "type": "string", "description": "Who the invoice is billed to" }, "site": { "type": "string", "description": "The site the hire is for" }, "hire_period": { "type": "string", "description": "The hire period" }, "currency": { "type": "string", "description": "The currency of the amounts" }, "subtotal": { "type": "string", "description": "The subtotal amount before tax" }, "tax": { "type": "string", "description": "The tax amount" }, "total_due": { "type": "string", "description": "The total amount due on the invoice" }, "line_items": { "type": "array", "description": "Every line item in the invoice table", "items": { "type": "object", "properties": { "description": { "type": "string", "description": "The description of the line item" }, "quantity": { "type": "string", "description": "The quantity of the line item" }, "unit_price": { "type": "string", "description": "The unit price of the line item" }, "amount": { "type": "string", "description": "The amount of the line item" } } } } } }
"invoice_number": "TPH-3301", "bill_to": "Oakbridge Construction Ltd", "site": "Oakbridge Depot Extension", "hire_period": "03 Mar - 10 Mar 2026", "currency": "£", "subtotal": "£1,462.00", "tax": "£292.40", "total_due": "£1,754.40",
Digital output for the same invoice
Copied from Output file 1 (JSON), lines 2–9
Open the JSON file ↗"invoice_number": "TPH-3301", "bill_to": "Oakbridge Construction Ltd", "site": "Oakbridge Depot Extension", "hire_period": "03 Mar - 10 Mar 2026", "currency": "GBP", "subtotal": "£1,462.00", "tax": "£292.40", "total_due": "£1,754.40",
Twin output with the currency notation gap
Copied from Output file 2 (JSON), lines 2–9
Open the JSON file ↗| ✓ | Expected: The scanned and digital documents should produce the same values.Found: Eight of nine fields were identical, including all three line items. The digital result used £ for currency; the scanned result used GBP. |
The scan needed to yield the same values as the digital invoice. It did: the only difference was currency notation, with both forms meaning pounds sterling. The schema did not prescribe a currency format, so that difference does not prevent a pass.
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 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.
| Level | Name | Scope |
|---|---|---|
| Benchmark | Structured Document Extraction → | 19 scenarios · 10 tools |
| Capability | OCR → | |
| Scenario | A cleanly scanned document → | |
| Tool | Landing AI → |
Global scenario definition → · Global capability definition → · Landing AI product page →
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.