Can Zendesk AI handle a customer correcting information given earlier?
Zendesk AI handled a customer correcting information given earlier by answering about the corrected order and leaving the first order out. The visible exchange shows the customer changing 41982 to 41830, then the bot replying only about 41830 with a processing status and a 2026-09-28 delivery estimate. The screenshot does not show a lookup result for 41982.
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.
Wrong order number corrected at t2PassEvidence
Input 1: “Where is order 41982?”
Input 2: “Sorry, wrong number - it's 41830”
The tool's reply is shown in the screenshot under Proof.
| ✓ | Expected: Answers about the corrected order and drops the first one.Found: The reply is about 41830 only; 41982 does not appear. |
The visible exchange shows the bot answering only about 41830 after the correction and leaving 41982 out of the reply. The screenshot also shows 41830 as processing with no shipping details yet.
First order not shown. The screenshot does not show a lookup result for 41982. The first bot reply is only a holding question, and the second reply is about 41830.
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 | AI Customer Support Chatbots → | 26 scenarios · 13 tools |
| Capability | Conversation continuity → | |
| Scenario | Customer corrects information given earlier → | |
| Tool | Zendesk AI → |
Global scenario definition → · Global capability definition → · Zendesk 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.