Can BlazeSQL understand when the next question refers to the previous answer?
BlazeSQL understood the follow-up as referring to the prior answer. In the first turn, it returned the top five customers by spend. In the follow-up, it counted orders for those same five customers, kept them in the same order, and did not ask who they were again. The shown SQL carries that customer list forward in a named CTE.
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.
"They" refers to the previous answer's setPassEvidence
Input 1: “Who are our top 5 customers by total spend?”
Input 2: “How many orders did they place in the last 90 days?”
The tool's reply is shown in the screenshots under Proofs.
| ✓ | Expected: The follow-up should use the earlier answer's set, without re-asking who they are or silently changing the set.Found: It counted orders for the five customers from turn 1, kept their order, and asked no question back. |
The follow-up was checked for whether it reused the earlier answer's set without asking again. It counted orders for the five customers from turn 1, kept their order, and the SQL carried that set forward in a named CTE.
Turn one revision. The first reply changed the customer list on its own and replaced Ingrid Sorensen with Marcus Whitfield.
Ninety-day window. The follow-up uses a 90-day window that starts on the date shown in the 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 Database Agents → | 28 scenarios · 4 tools |
| Capability | Conversational Interaction → | |
| Scenario | The next question refers to the previous answer → | |
| 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.