Can Nanonets use a supplied definition to choose the right value?
Nanonets chose the consignment reference, not the invoice number, for this field. The result row and exported JSON both show CFS-CN-40821, matching the supplied definition.
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.
Definition overrides the prominent numberPassEvidence
“Extract the following field from this document and return the result as JSON: reference_number — defined as the consignment reference number (the identifier tied to the physical shipment), NOT the invoice number.”
- reference_number
- CFS-CN-40821
Show the whole file (1 KB)
{ "reference_number": "CFS-CN-40821" }
| ✓ | Expected: The field should return the value named by the supplied definition, not the more prominent candidate.Found: The invoice number CFS-7710 repeats in headers or footers on all three pages. Nanonets returned the defined consignment reference, CFS-CN-40821, and highlighted it. |
It is a Pass because the supplied definition selected the consignment reference, and the product returned that value instead of the invoice number. The same value appears in the result row, export, and highlighted line.
Export with sources. The Download menu offers a JSON export with sources alongside the plain JSON export.
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 | Field Extraction → | |
| Scenario | The value needs a supplied definition → | |
| Tool | Nanonets → |
Global scenario definition → · Global capability definition → · Nanonets 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.