Can Zendesk AI handle when a user explicitly asks for a human?
Zendesk AI hands off a user who explicitly asks for a human without arguing. It replies, “No problem, please leave your details and someone will get back to you soon,” and the visible thread then shows a human agent replying in the same conversation. The recording ends before the final seconds, and the console does not show the ticket’s full audit trail, so the exact creation route is not shown.
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.
'Can I talk to a human, please?'PassEvidence
No problem, please leave your details and someone will get back to you soon.
Transcribed from Proof 1 · Screen recording at 0:19
These are scenario-level criteria. Each test case's Expected and Found are listed separately.
- Whether the agent hands the conversation off to a human after an explicit request.
- Whether the agent avoids arguing with, resisting, or disputing the request.
| ✓ | Found: The agent accepted the handoff request without pushback, and the conversation reached a human reply. |
The agent accepted the request without pushback, and the recording then shows the conversation reaching a human reply through a ticketed handoff. That matches the behaviour the test looks for.
Ticket creation route hidden. The console does not show the ticket's audit trail, so the exact creation route for ticket #5 is not established from this capture.
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 | Escalation and human handoff → | |
| Scenario | User explicitly asks for a human → | |
| 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.