Can Landing AI filter records across extracted documents?
Landing AI failed to filter records across extracted documents. Chat refused the request, and the interface only showed one document at a time with no filter or query control; the receipts themselves were extracted correctly, including two above 150 and one below.
1 of 1 test case failed
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.
Filter across the extracted setFailEvidence
“Show documents with total due greater than 150”
I cannot find the answer in the provided document.
Transcribed from Proof 4 · Screenshot
| ✗ | Expected: Only the documents whose extracted total is above 150.Found: Chat refused the request, and the product showed only one document at a time; the matching documents were not returned as a set. |
Chat tab, file Baseline_receipt (project of 3 receipts) Question: Show documents with total due greater than 150 Answer: I cannot find the answer in the provided document. Footer on screen: "Chat works with this file only and isn't available as an API."
The product was asked to return matching documents from a set, but Chat refused and the view only exposed one document at a time. The extraction was correct, so the failure is in querying across records, not in reading the PDFs.
Correct extraction. Each receipt's extracted values matched its PDF, including the two variant layouts.
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 | Querying → | |
| Scenario | Filter records across documents → | |
| 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.