Can BlazeSQL handle a customer correcting information given earlier?
BlazeSQL replaced the earlier July answer with the corrected June answer. In the visible exchange, the first turn returned 21 orders for July 2026, and the follow-up turn rebuilt the query for June 2026 and returned 20 orders, matching the corrected period only.
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.
Corrected period replaces the originalPassEvidence
Input 1: “How many orders did we get in July 2026?”
Input 2: “Sorry, I meant June 2026.”
Query logic: 1. Filter orders where placed_at falls within June 2026. 2. Count the total number of matching orders. order_count 20 No worries! There were 20 orders placed in June 2026. Would you like anything else?
Transcribed from Proof 1 · Screenshot
1 SELECT COUNT(*) AS order_count 2 FROM orders 3 WHERE placed_at >= '2026-06-01' 4 AND placed_at < '2026-07-01'
Transcribed from Proof 1 · Screenshot
These are scenario-level criteria. Each test case's Expected and Found are listed separately.
- Whether the later correction replaces the earlier detail in later turns.
- Whether the response reflects only the corrected information, not a mix of old and new details.
- Whether the agent does not continue reasoning from the superseded detail after the correction.
| ✓ | Found: The corrected period alone was used: June returned 20 orders. |
The corrected June 2026 question was answered on its own. The rebuilt SQL used June-only date bounds and returned 20 orders, while the July turn separately returned 21.
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 Database Agents → | 28 scenarios · 4 tools |
| Capability | Conversational Interaction → | |
| Scenario | Customer corrects information given earlier → | |
| Tool | BlazeSQL → |
Global scenario definition → · Global capability definition → · BlazeSQL 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.