Graded 28 September 2026
Can Mistral AI process a document with figures and captions?
Mistral AI preserved the figure at its source-page position and kept the caption directly below it. The Markdown places `` between the two surrounding paragraphs, with the Figure 1 caption immediately beneath it.
1 of 1 test case passed
Every test case in this scenario has a result.
Pass rate100%1 of 1 with a result
Coverage1 of 1test cases with a result
1PassDid everything it was expected to do.
0FailNo test case failed.
0Not gradableEvery result here could be graded.
0UntestedEvery test case in this scenario has a result.
The pass rate is a summary. The evidence is the test case below: what we sent, what we checked, what the tool returned, and the proof.
The test case
Each test case is judged on its own: Pass, Fail, Not gradable, or Untested. The scenario result above counts this row.
Figure with caption — preserved in placePassEvidence
What we sent
InputDocument (PDF)
Key momentsp. 2, 3 ↗
What the tool returned
Markdown37 lines
# Intertidal survey of Kellow Sands and Thrimby Point Report BEP/SR/2026/11 · Survey of 19 to 23 January 2026 · Issued February 2026 ## Summary The four fixed transects at Kellow Sands and Thrimby Point were resurveyed in January, in the third winter since sediment recharge began. This report sets out the method, the profiles measured, and the change on each transect since the surveys began. Levels were taken at five-metre intervals along each transect with a total station from the survey marks on the training wall and at the lifeboat house. Sediment samples were taken at the mid-shore station on each transect for particle size, and are reported by the laboratory separately. Conditions during the survey were settled, with no swell and a spring range near the mean. Nothing about the week's weather is likely to have affected the levels measured. ## Background The Partnership has surveyed the intertidal at Kellow Sands since 2019, when the four transects were established to provide a baseline for the sediment recharge then being planned. The first two winters were surveyed before any material was placed. Placement began in the winter of 2023/24 and has been carried out in each winter since, most recently between November 2025 and January 2026. The purpose of the survey is a narrow one. It is meant to answer whether the intertidal profile at Kellow Sands is gaining or losing sediment, and at what rate, on lines whose position is fixed. It is not a study of where the placed material goes, which would need tracer work the Partnership has not commissioned, and it cannot by itself attribute a change to the recharge rather than to the weather. ## Method Levels were taken with a total station from the two survey marks used since 2019, at five-metre intervals along each transect and at every break of slope between them. Each line was run twice, out and back, and the two sets agreed everywhere within the tolerance the method allows. Where they did not, which happened once on transect three, the point was re-observed. The horizontal position of each line is fixed by a mark set in concrete at the landward end and by a pin in the training wall or the marsh edge at the seaward end. All eight marks were found and checked against the 2019 coordinates before work began. The pin at the seaward end of transect two has moved and was re-established from the landward mark; the correction is recorded in the level book and is smaller than the interval between observations. Sediment samples were taken at the mid-shore station on each line, in the order in which the lines were surveyed, and delivered to the laboratory the same afternoon. Particle size is reported separately and is not discussed here. ## The transects Transect one runs from the seawall opposite the boatyard to the low water mark, crossing the widest part of the sand. It is the longest of the four lines and the only one on which the whole intertidal profile can be surveyed within a single tide. Transects two and three are the pair the recharge was expected to affect. Both cross the placement footprint at its northern end, transect two some sixty metres from the discharge point and transect three about a hundred and forty. Neither has been moved since it was established, and the marks at both ends of both lines were found in good order. The plan below shows the four lines as they were surveyed in January, together with the saltmarsh edge as it stood at the 1998 survey. The 1998 edge is drawn because it is the last edge surveyed on the ground rather than taken from photography, and because it is the line against which the advisers have asked that marsh extent be reported.  Figure 1. Survey transects at Kellow Sands and Thrimby Point. Sampling stations are shown as filled circles and the 1998 saltmarsh edge as a broken line.
Copied from Proof 1 · Output file (Markdown), lines 1–37 · an excerpt; the link below opens the whole file
Open the Markdown file ↗Proof 1Output file (Markdown)
Part of this file is printed above, under What the tool returned. Show the whole file
Markdown59 lines
# Intertidal survey of Kellow Sands and Thrimby Point Report BEP/SR/2026/11 · Survey of 19 to 23 January 2026 · Issued February 2026 ## Summary The four fixed transects at Kellow Sands and Thrimby Point were resurveyed in January, in the third winter since sediment recharge began. This report sets out the method, the profiles measured, and the change on each transect since the surveys began. Levels were taken at five-metre intervals along each transect with a total station from the survey marks on the training wall and at the lifeboat house. Sediment samples were taken at the mid-shore station on each transect for particle size, and are reported by the laboratory separately. Conditions during the survey were settled, with no swell and a spring range near the mean. Nothing about the week's weather is likely to have affected the levels measured. ## Background The Partnership has surveyed the intertidal at Kellow Sands since 2019, when the four transects were established to provide a baseline for the sediment recharge then being planned. The first two winters were surveyed before any material was placed. Placement began in the winter of 2023/24 and has been carried out in each winter since, most recently between November 2025 and January 2026. The purpose of the survey is a narrow one. It is meant to answer whether the intertidal profile at Kellow Sands is gaining or losing sediment, and at what rate, on lines whose position is fixed. It is not a study of where the placed material goes, which would need tracer work the Partnership has not commissioned, and it cannot by itself attribute a change to the recharge rather than to the weather. ## Method Levels were taken with a total station from the two survey marks used since 2019, at five-metre intervals along each transect and at every break of slope between them. Each line was run twice, out and back, and the two sets agreed everywhere within the tolerance the method allows. Where they did not, which happened once on transect three, the point was re-observed. The horizontal position of each line is fixed by a mark set in concrete at the landward end and by a pin in the training wall or the marsh edge at the seaward end. All eight marks were found and checked against the 2019 coordinates before work began. The pin at the seaward end of transect two has moved and was re-established from the landward mark; the correction is recorded in the level book and is smaller than the interval between observations. Sediment samples were taken at the mid-shore station on each line, in the order in which the lines were surveyed, and delivered to the laboratory the same afternoon. Particle size is reported separately and is not discussed here. ## The transects Transect one runs from the seawall opposite the boatyard to the low water mark, crossing the widest part of the sand. It is the longest of the four lines and the only one on which the whole intertidal profile can be surveyed within a single tide. Transects two and three are the pair the recharge was expected to affect. Both cross the placement footprint at its northern end, transect two some sixty metres from the discharge point and transect three about a hundred and forty. Neither has been moved since it was established, and the marks at both ends of both lines were found in good order. The plan below shows the four lines as they were surveyed in January, together with the saltmarsh edge as it stood at the 1998 survey. The 1998 edge is drawn because it is the last edge surveyed on the ground rather than taken from photography, and because it is the line against which the advisers have asked that marsh extent be reported.  Figure 1. Survey transects at Kellow Sands and Thrimby Point. Sampling stations are shown as filled circles and the 1998 saltmarsh edge as a broken line. Transect four crosses the toe of the training wall and has always behaved differently from the other three. It is retained because the wall itself is the reason for the difference, and because the Partnership was asked in 2019 to keep a line there. The stations shown on the plan are those at which sediment samples are taken, and not the points at which levels were observed: the level observations are too close together to plot at this scale. A full set of profiles is bound into the copy of this report held by the secretariat. ## Change since the first survey Change is reported as a mean annual rate over each winter, taken across the whole intertidal part of the line. Accretion varied markedly between transects, and the pattern is the same in each of the three winters measured. **Mean sediment accretion by transect, winters 2023/24 to 2025/26**  The rates plotted are means over the intertidal part of each line, weighted by the length of profile each observation represents. A mean of that kind conceals a good deal. On transect two most of the gain is in the upper third of the profile, and on transect four the loss is almost all at the toe of the wall; the profiles show this plainly and a mean does not. The advisers' view, which the secretariat shares, is that three winters is too short a run to separate the effect of placement from the variation the estuary shows anyway. The transects should be resurveyed next January on the same lines and by the same method before anything is concluded from them. # The next survey The profiles themselves, the level books and the mark check sheets are held by the secretariat and are available to Partnership members on request. The next survey is due in January 2027. The secretariat proposes to keep the January window, and to ask the laboratory for particle size on the same four stations so that the series stays comparable.
Proof 2Output file (JSON)
JSON370 lines
{ "pages": [ { "index": 0, "markdown": "# Intertidal survey of Kellow Sands and Thrimby Point\n\nReport BEP/SR/2026/11 \u00b7 Survey of 19 to 23 January 2026 \u00b7 Issued February 2026\n\n## Summary\n\nThe four fixed transects at Kellow Sands and Thrimby Point were resurveyed in January, in the third winter since sediment recharge began. This report sets out the method, the profiles measured, and the change on each transect since the surveys began.\n\nLevels were taken at five-metre intervals along each transect with a total station from the survey marks on the training wall and at the lifeboat house. Sediment samples were taken at the mid-shore station on each transect for particle size, and are reported by the laboratory separately.\n\nConditions during the survey were settled, with no swell and a spring range near the mean. Nothing about the week's weather is likely to have affected the levels measured.\n\n## Background\n\nThe Partnership has surveyed the intertidal at Kellow Sands since 2019, when the four transects were established to provide a baseline for the sediment recharge then being planned. The first two winters were surveyed before any material was placed. Placement began in the winter of 2023/24 and has been carried out in each winter since, most recently between November 2025 and January 2026.\n\nThe purpose of the survey is a narrow one. It is meant to answer whether the intertidal profile at Kellow Sands is gaining or losing sediment, and at what rate, on lines whose position is fixed. It is not a study of where the placed material goes, which would need tracer work the Partnership has not commissioned, and it cannot by itself attribute a change to the recharge rather than to the weather.\n\n## Method\n\nLevels were taken with a total station from the two survey marks used since 2019, at five-metre intervals along each transect and at every break of slope between them. Each line was run twice, out and back, and the two sets agreed everywhere within the tolerance the method allows. Where they did not, which happened once on transect three, the point was re-observed.\n\nThe horizontal position of each line is fixed by a mark set in concrete at the landward end and by a pin in the training wall or the marsh edge at the seaward end. All eight marks were found and checked against the 2019 coordinates before work began. The pin at the seaward end of transect two has moved and was re-established from the landward mark; the correction is recorded in the level book and is smaller than the interval between observations.\n\nSediment samples were taken at the mid-shore station on each line, in the order in which the lines were surveyed, and delivered to the laboratory the same afternoon. Particle size is reported separately and is not discussed here.", "images": [], "tables": [], "hyperlinks": [], "header": null, "footer": null, "dimensions": { "dpi": 87, "height": 1018, "width": 720 }, "confidence_scores": null, "blocks": [ { "top_left_x": 70, "top_left_y": 60, "bottom_right_x": 495, "bottom_right_y": 81, "content": "# Intertidal survey of Kellow Sands and Thrimby Point", "confidence_scores": null, "type": "title" }, { "top_left_x": 70, "top_left_y": 93, "bottom_right_x": 519, "bottom_right_y": 108, "content": "Report BEP/SR/2026/11 \u00b7 Survey of 19 to 23 January 2026 \u00b7 Issued February 2026", "confidence_scores": null, "type": "text" }, { "top_left_x": 70, "top_left_y": 155, "bottom_right_x": 141, "bottom_right_y": 172, "content": "## Summary", "confidence_scores": null, "type": "title" }, { "top_left_x": 70, "top_left_y": 189, "bottom_right_x": 649, "bottom_right_y": 237, "content": "The four fixed transects at Kellow Sands and Thrimby Point were resurveyed in January, in the third winter since sediment recharge began. This report sets out the method, the profiles measured, and the change on each transect since the surveys began.", "confidence_scores": null, "type": "text" }, { "top_left_x": 70, "top_left_y": 251, "bottom_right_x": 649, "bottom_right_y": 301, "content": "Levels were taken at five-metre intervals along each transect with a total station from the survey marks on the training wall and at the lifeboat house. Sediment samples were taken at the mid-shore station on each transect for particle size, and are reported by the laboratory separately.", "confidence_scores": null, "type": "text" }, { "top_left_x": 70, "top_left_y": 314, "bottom_right_x": 649, "bottom_right_y": 346, "content": "Conditions during the survey were settled, with no swell and a spring range near the mean. Nothing about the week's weather is likely to have affected the levels measured.", "confidence_scores": null, "type": "text" }, { "top_left_x": 70, "top_left_y": 387, "bottom_right_x": 159, "bottom_right_y": 406, "content": "## Background", "confidence_scores": null, "type": "title" }, { "top_left_x": 70, "top_left_y": 421, "bottom_right_x": 649, "bottom_right_y": 487, "content": "The Partnership has surveyed the intertidal at Kellow Sands since 2019, when the four transects were established to provide a baseline for the sediment recharge then being planned. The first two winters were surveyed before any material was placed. Placement began in the winter of 2023/24 and has been carried out in each winter since, most recently between November 2025 and January 2026.", "confidence_scores": null, "type": "text" }, { "top_left_x": 70, "top_left_y": 501, "bottom_right_x": 649, "bottom_right_y": 568, "content": "The purpose of the survey is a narrow one. It is meant to answer whether the intertidal profile at Kellow Sands is gaining or losing sediment, and at what rate, on lines whose position is fixed. It is not a study of where the placed material goes, which would need tracer work the Partnership has not commissioned, and it cannot by itself attribute a change to the recharge rather than to the weather.", "confidence_scores": null, "type": "text" }, { "top_left_x": 70, "top_left_y": 608, "bottom_right_x": 126, "bottom_right_y": 625, "content": "## Method", "confidence_scores": null, "type": "title" }, { "top_left_x": 70, "top_left_y": 642, "bottom_right_x": 649, "bottom_right_y": 708, "content": "Levels were taken with a total station from the two survey marks used since 2019, at five-metre intervals along each transect and at every break of slope between them. Each line was run twice, out and back, and the two sets agreed everywhere within the tolerance the method allows. Where they did not, which happened once on transect three, the point was re-observed.", "confidence_scores": null, "type": "text" }, { "top_left_x": 70, "top_left_y": 721, "bottom_right_x": 649, "bottom_right_y": 804, "content": "The horizontal position of each line is fixed by a mark set in concrete at the landward end and by a pin in the training wall or the marsh edge at the seaward end. All eight marks were found and checked against the 2019 coordinates before work began. The pin at the seaward end of transect two has moved and was re-established from the landward mark; the correction is recorded in the level book and is smaller than the interval between observations.", "confidence_scores": null, "type": "text" }, { "top_left_x": 70, "top_left_y": 818, "bottom_right_x": 649, "bottom_right_y": 867, "content": "Sediment samples were taken at the mid-shore station on each line, in the order in which the lines were surveyed, and delivered to the laboratory the same afternoon. Particle size is reported separately and is not discussed here.", "confidence_scores": null, "type": "text" } ] }, { "index": 1, "markdown": "## The transects\n\nTransect one runs from the seawall opposite the boatyard to the low water mark, crossing the widest part of the sand. It is the longest of the four lines and the only one on which the whole intertidal profile can be surveyed within a single tide.\n\nTransects two and three are the pair the recharge was expected to affect. Both cross the placement footprint at its northern end, transect two some sixty metres from the discharge point and transect three about a hundred and forty. Neither has been moved since it was established, and the marks at both ends of both lines were found in good order.\n\nThe plan below shows the four lines as they were surveyed in January, together with the saltmarsh edge as it stood at the 1998 survey. The 1998 edge is drawn because it is the last edge surveyed on the ground rather than taken from photography, and because it is the line against which the advisers have asked that marsh extent be reported.\n\n\n\nFigure 1. Survey transects at Kellow Sands and Thrimby Point. Sampling stations are shown as filled circles and the 1998 saltmarsh edge as a broken line.\n\nTransect four crosses the toe of the training wall and has always behaved differently from the other three. It is retained because the wall itself is the reason for the difference, and because the Partnership was asked in 2019 to keep a line there.\n\nThe stations shown on the plan are those at which sediment samples are taken, and not the points at which levels were observed: the level observations are too close together to plot at this scale. A full set of profiles is bound into the copy of this report held by the secretariat.", "images": [ { "id": "img-0.jpeg", "top_left_x": 130, "top_left_y": 345, "bottom_right_x": 585, "bottom_right_y": 573, "image_base64": "<base64 stripped by run_mistral.py for readability; 12467 chars on the wire; decoded bytes written to assets/img-0.jpeg>", "image_annotation": null } ], "tables": [], "hyperlinks": [], "header": null, "footer": null, "dimensions": { "dpi": 87, "height": 1018, "width": 720 }, "confidence_scores": null, "blocks": [ { "top_left_x": 70, "top_left_y": 61, "bottom_right_x": 169, "bottom_right_y": 76, "content": "## The transects", "confidence_scores": null, "type": "title" }, { "top_left_x": 70, "top_left_y": 93, "bottom_right_x": 650, "bottom_right_y": 143, "content": "Transect one runs from the seawall opposite the boatyard to the low water mark, crossing the widest part of the sand. It is the longest of the four lines and the only one on which the whole intertidal profile can be surveyed within a single tide.", "confidence_scores": null, "type": "text" }, { "top_left_x": 70, "top_left_y": 155, "bottom_right_x": 650, "bottom_right_y": 222, "content": "Transects two and three are the pair the recharge was expected to affect. Both cross the placement footprint at its northern end, transect two some sixty metres from the discharge point and transect three about a hundred and forty. Neither has been moved since it was established, and the marks at both ends of both lines were found in good order.", "confidence_scores": null, "type": "text" }, { "top_left_x": 70, "top_left_y": 234, "bottom_right_x": 650, "bottom_right_y": 302, "content": "The plan below shows the four lines as they were surveyed in January, together with the saltmarsh edge as it stood at the 1998 survey. The 1998 edge is drawn because it is the last edge surveyed on the ground rather than taken from photography, and because it is the line against which the advisers have asked that marsh extent be reported.", "confidence_scores": null, "type": "text" }, { "top_left_x": 130, "top_left_y": 345, "bottom_right_x": 585, "bottom_right_y": 573, "content": "", "confidence_scores": null, "type": "image", "image_id": "img-0.jpeg" }, { "top_left_x": 70, "top_left_y": 587, "bottom_right_x": 650, "bottom_right_y": 612, "content": "Figure 1. Survey transects at Kellow Sands and Thrimby Point. Sampling stations are shown as filled circles and the 1998 saltmarsh edge as a broken line.", "confidence_scores": null, "type": "caption" }, { "top_left_x": 70, "top_left_y": 645, "bottom_right_x": 650, "bottom_right_y": 694, "content": "Transect four crosses the toe of the training wall and has always behaved differently from the other three. It is retained because the wall itself is the reason for the difference, and because the Partnership was asked in 2019 to keep a line there.", "confidence_scores": null, "type": "text" }, { "top_left_x": 70, "top_left_y": 707, "bottom_right_x": 650, "bottom_right_y": 757, "content": "The stations shown on the plan are those at which sediment samples are taken, and not the points at which levels were observed: the level observations are too close together to plot at this scale. A full set of profiles is bound into the copy of this report held by the secretariat.", "confidence_scores": null, "type": "text" } ] }, { "index": 2, "markdown": "## Change since the first survey\n\nChange is reported as a mean annual rate over each winter, taken across the whole intertidal part of the line. Accretion varied markedly between transects, and the pattern is the same in each of the three winters measured.\n\n**Mean sediment accretion by transect, winters 2023/24 to 2025/26**\n\n\n\nThe rates plotted are means over the intertidal part of each line, weighted by the length of profile each observation represents. A mean of that kind conceals a good deal. On transect two most of the gain is in the upper third of the profile, and on transect four the loss is almost all at the toe of the wall; the profiles show this plainly and a mean does not.\n\nThe advisers' view, which the secretariat shares, is that three winters is too short a run to separate the effect of placement from the variation the estuary shows anyway. The transects should be resurveyed next January on the same lines and by the same method before anything is concluded from them.", "images": [ { "id": "img-1.jpeg", "top_left_x": 78, "top_left_y": 202, "bottom_right_x": 639, "bottom_right_y": 534, "image_base64": "<base64 stripped by run_mistral.py for readability; 18247 chars on the wire; decoded bytes written to assets/img-1.jpeg>", "image_annotation": null } ], "tables": [], "hyperlinks": [], "header": null, "footer": null, "dimensions": { "dpi": 87, "height": 1018, "width": 720 }, "confidence_scores": null, "blocks": [ { "top_left_x": 71, "top_left_y": 61, "bottom_right_x": 277, "bottom_right_y": 79, "content": "## Change since the first survey", "confidence_scores": null, "type": "title" }, { "top_left_x": 71, "top_left_y": 94, "bottom_right_x": 654, "bottom_right_y": 144, "content": "Change is reported as a mean annual rate over each winter, taken across the whole intertidal part of the line. Accretion varied markedly between transects, and the pattern is the same in each of the three winters measured.", "confidence_scores": null, "type": "text" }, { "top_left_x": 160, "top_left_y": 177, "bottom_right_x": 521, "bottom_right_y": 193, "content": "**Mean sediment accretion by transect, winters 2023/24 to 2025/26**", "confidence_scores": null, "type": "caption" }, { "top_left_x": 78, "top_left_y": 202, "bottom_right_x": 639, "bottom_right_y": 534, "content": "", "confidence_scores": null, "type": "image", "image_id": "img-1.jpeg" }, { "top_left_x": 71, "top_left_y": 565, "bottom_right_x": 654, "bottom_right_y": 630, "content": "The rates plotted are means over the intertidal part of each line, weighted by the length of profile each observation represents. A mean of that kind conceals a good deal. On transect two most of the gain is in the upper third of the profile, and on transect four the loss is almost all at the toe of the wall; the profiles show this plainly and a mean does not.", "confidence_scores": null, "type": "text" }, { "top_left_x": 71, "top_left_y": 642, "bottom_right_x": 654, "bottom_right_y": 693, "content": "The advisers' view, which the secretariat shares, is that three winters is too short a run to separate the effect of placement from the variation the estuary shows anyway. The transects should be resurveyed next January on the same lines and by the same method before anything is concluded from them.", "confidence_scores": null, "type": "text" } ] }, { "index": 3, "markdown": "# The next survey\n\nThe profiles themselves, the level books and the mark check sheets are held by the secretariat and are available to Partnership members on request.\n\nThe next survey is due in January 2027. The secretariat proposes to keep the January window, and to ask the laboratory for particle size on the same four stations so that the series stays comparable.", "images": [], "tables": [], "hyperlinks": [], "header": null, "footer": null, "dimensions": { "dpi": 87, "height": 1018, "width": 720 }, "confidence_scores": null, "blocks": [ { "top_left_x": 69, "top_left_y": 60, "bottom_right_x": 187, "bottom_right_y": 79, "content": "# The next survey", "confidence_scores": null, "type": "title" }, { "top_left_x": 69, "top_left_y": 93, "bottom_right_x": 650, "bottom_right_y": 126, "content": "The profiles themselves, the level books and the mark check sheets are held by the secretariat and are available to Partnership members on request.", "confidence_scores": null, "type": "text" }, { "top_left_x": 69, "top_left_y": 139, "bottom_right_x": 651, "bottom_right_y": 172, "content": "The next survey is due in January 2027. The secretariat proposes to keep the January window, and to ask the laboratory for particle size on the same four stations so that the series stays comparable.", "confidence_scores": null, "type": "text" } ] } ], "model": "mistral-ocr-latest", "document_annotation": null, "usage_info": { "pages_processed": 4, "doc_size_bytes": 308601 } }
Expected vs. Found
What this scenario evaluates
These are scenario-level criteria. Each test case's Expected and Found are listed separately.
- Whether the figure is preserved rather than omitted or replaced by surrounding prose.
- Whether the figure remains positioned in the output at the point where it belongs in the document flow.
- Whether the caption stays attached to the figure and remains associated with it.
| ✓ | Found: The figure reference stays between the same paragraphs, and the caption matches the source text exactly. |
Supporting proof
Proof 3Screenshot
Proof 4Screenshot
Proof 5Screenshot
Why this result
The output keeps the figure between the same two paragraphs as the source PDF page 2, and the caption matches the source text exactly. The matching crop shows the survey plan with the labeled transects and the saltmarsh edge.
Also observed on this row
Linked image assets. The Markdown links the figure as a separate asset instead of embedding image bytes inline. It reads correctly only when the assets folder stays alongside the Markdown.
Tested by Chandresh Bisht · evidence dated 10 September 2026
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.
Software that produced the output
Mistral AI
Build or version
mistral-ocr-latest (model id echoed by the API; dated version not exposed)
Plan or tier
Mistral La Plateforme (metered OCR endpoint)
Model
mistral-ocr-latest
Surface
Mistral La Plateforme / Document AI
Set up before the run
A PDF with a figure and a normal-text caption was converted to Markdown from the complete file in one default pass, without cropping any page.
pipeline
Document AI default OCR pipeline
pipeline
default OCR pipeline
Tested
10 September 2026 · Chandresh Bisht
Connected to
How this scenario is graded
How we decide Pass, Fail and Not gradable. The same rules apply to every tool tested on this scenario.
How results are decided
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.
The rules
- 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 | Converting a complex PDF into clean Markdown with a hosted API → | 12 scenarios · 13 tools |
| Capability | Figures & Charts → | |
| Scenario | A document with figures and captions → | |
| Tool | Mistral AI → |
Global scenario definition → · Global capability definition → · Mistral 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.
6 October 2026First publishedConverting a complex PDF into clean Markdown with a hosted API v1
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.
This matches what I see
You run the same kind of test against your own setup and get the same behaviour.
Agree →This does not match
Yours behaves differently. Tell us what you got, with a screenshot if you have one.
Disagree →Point out an issue
Something here is wrong — a reference value, a transcription, a grade.
Report an issue →We have fixed this
Tell us what changed and we schedule a rerun of the failing test case. The old result stays as history.
Vendor notice →Filed against this evidenceNothing yet. Challenges, counter-evidence and fix notices appear here with their outcome, and stay on the page after they are resolved.
Cite this result
aidemos.com/benchmarks/pdf-to-markdown-apis/results/mistral-ai/a-document-with-figures-and-captions · 1 pass · 0 fail · coverage 1/1 · graded 2026-09-28
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.
Proof 3 · Screenshot ↗image/png · 193 KB
Input · Document (PDF) ↗application/pdf · 301 KB
Proof 1 · Output file (Markdown) ↗text/markdown · 6 KB
Proof 2 · Output file (JSON) ↗application/json · 20 KB
Proof 4 · Screenshot ↗image/png · 57 KB
Proof 5 · Screenshot ↗image/jpeg · 9 KB
File fingerprints (SHA-256)
A fingerprint identifies the exact file used for this result.
Proof 3 · Screenshot140c9e82eeb0dfaf30c7296762d19f3007c7b2544bc509e33adff7d5cb691b88
Input · Document (PDF)75b2bcc613580942d7d3222254c0f0d084525c2c6521f55cffa629c49f64c608
Proof 1 · Output file (Markdown)ac169851db84a3b6d2721cfa0eaecfbc9f3d857d5a711fb9f3d4bbb9e74d3f3d
Proof 2 · Output file (JSON)c19cc9416082a66a84b6c97ae5bd8cdfa661b7942e5764eb82f873a9c74bbb43
Proof 4 · Screenshotc6225544168012218310227655590caea3dd794dba71299c785c279bdc79ce91
Proof 5 · Screenshotd4c2a0e187dfb5c77f13a8e6e20ce4a192ac2131da6e2eb8ccffed133f962e2b