AI Demos Research — the structured-intelligence platform. Every verdict on these pages opens to the execution behind it.
Graded 29 September 2026

Can Reducto process a document mixing digital and scanned pages?

The mixed PDF’s scanned page was processed rather than skipped. Reducto’s Markdown includes the image-only page 2 with its headers, table, certificate section, and recipient details, matching the digital pages’ presentation in the checked evidence.

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.

Mixed pages — scanned page not skippedPassEvidence
What we sent
InputDocument (PDF)
Three-page service worksheet PDF with an image-only middle page. From outside the graded run; shown for context, not graded.
Open the PDF ↗
Key momentsp. 2 ↗
What the tool returned
Markdown98 lines
Kirkhollow Analytical Laboratories Ltd

Job KAL-ESR-4471

# Equipment service report

CLIENT
Braithe Estuary Partnership
Estuary House, Vardenne Quay
Braithe BR3 4LN

Job reference: <b>KAL-ESR-4471</b>
Date of visit: <b>29 January 2026</b>
Engineer: <b>R. Tarbert</b>
Instrument: <b>Kestrel 400 turbidity analyser</b>
Location: <b>Vardenne Quay pumping station</b>
Service interval: <b>Twelve months</b>

## Reported fault

Intermittent baseline noise on channel 2, reported by the Partnership on 21 January. The analyser had been running without attention since the annual service in January 2025.

## Work carried out

The flow cell was removed, stripped and cleaned, and the pump tubing set replaced. The optical window was found to be lightly fouled on the inner face; it was cleaned rather than replaced, and should be inspected again at the next visit. The analyser was recalibrated against the two-point standards and left running on channel 2 for an hour before the site was handed back. The completed worksheet is bound in as page 2 of this report.

KAL-ESR-4471

Page 1 of 3

# Kirkhollow Analytical Laboratories Ltd
Service worksheet

FIELD SERVICE

Job reference: <b>KAL-ESR-4471</b>
Instrument serial: <b>GK-2214-77</b>
Engineer: <b>R. Tarbert</b>
Date: <b>29 January 2026</b>

## CHECKS AND READINGS

| Flow cell condition on arrival   | Fouled, inner face   |
|-|-|
| Flow cell pressure after service | 2.4 bar              |
| Zero drift over 30 minutes       | 0.003 mg/l           |
| Span recovery against standard   | 99.4 per cent        |
| Lamp hours at service            | 8,140                |
| Result                           | Pass                 |

## Calibration certificate SR-4471/2

Analyser left in service on channel 2. Optical window to be inspected at the next visit.

## TIME ON SITE

| Arrived          | 29 January 2026, 09:15   |
|-|-|
| Left             | 29 January 2026, 13:40   |
| Chargeable time  | 4 hours 25 minutes       |
| Next service due | January 2027             |

## RECEIVED BY

Name: <b>M. Cairney</b>
Position: <b>Duty operator, Vardenne Quay</b>
Date: <b>29 January 2026</b>

<signature>
Engineer's signature

Service worksheet . KAL-ESR-4471

Page 2 of 3

Kirkhollow Analytical Laboratories Ltd

Job KAL-ESR-4471

## Parts fitted

| Part                    | Code    | Quantity   |
|-|-|-|
| Pump tubing set         | PT-114  | 1          |
| Flow cell O-ring, 12 mm | OR-0912 | 2          |
| Inlet filter, 40 micron | IF-4004 | 1          |

## Declaration

The work described in this report was carried out to the standard set out in the service agreement. The analyser was left in service and calibrated. The next annual service falls due in January 2027.

Engineer: <b>R. Tarbert</b>
Countersigned: <b>Dr A. J. Prosser</b>
Report issued: <b>2 February 2026</b>

KAL-ESR-4471

Page 3 of 3

Copied from Proof 1 · Output file (Markdown), lines 1–98

Open the Markdown file ↗
Proof 1Output file (Markdown)
Markdown output that includes the scanned page’s headers, table, certificate section, and recipient details. From outside the graded run; shown for context, not graded.

Its contents are printed above, under What the tool returned.

Open the Markdown file ↗
Expected vs. Found
What this scenario evaluates

These are scenario-level criteria. Each test case's Expected and Found are listed separately.

  • Whether the scanned page inside a mixed document is processed rather than silently skipped.
  • Whether page-by-page handling keeps content from both digital text pages and scanned image-only pages.
  • Whether the system treats the document as mixed, not as a fully digital file with no special handling needed.
How this scenario is judged →
✓Found: The image-only page appears in the Markdown with its headers, table rows, certificate section, and recipient details.
Supporting proof
Proof 2Screenshot
Side-by-side screenshot comparing the scanned source page with the returned Markdown.
Open original ↗
Why this result

The check required the image-only page to appear in the Markdown like the digital pages. The output includes that page’s headers, table rows, certificate section, and recipient details, and the side-by-side evidence shows the scan rendered with the same page structure.

Also observed on this row

Boundary footer retained. The returned Markdown keeps the running footer at the page boundary. That footer retention is separate from the page-2 content check.

Tested by Chandresh Bisht · evidence dated 9 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
Reducto
Build or version
not exposed (server build not reported; server-default model)
Plan or tier
Standard self-serve plan
Model
not exposed (server build not reported; server-default model)
Surface
REST API
Set up before the run
A digital PDF with one scanned image-only page was provided, and Reducto converted the complete PDF to Markdown in one pass using its default pipeline.
parse pipeline
default
pipeline
default parse pipeline
parse pipeline
default parse pipeline
Tested
9 September 2026 · Chandresh Bisht

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.

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.

from the publication record
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 →
Request a retest

On a newer build, a larger dataset, or your own setup.

Request a retest →
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/reducto/a-document-mixing-digital-and-scanned-pages · 1 pass · 0 fail · coverage 1/1 · graded 2026-09-29

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.

Input · Document (PDF) ↗application/pdf · 356 KB
Proof 2 · Screenshot ↗image/png · 874 KB
File fingerprints (SHA-256)

A fingerprint identifies the exact file used for this result.

Input · Document (PDF)096951b8eaf09740a926620943c7eb9b076e80144d76e7a90fb7f77056b6ef83
Proof 1 · Output file (Markdown)76a94288bb1c3a5518d35d32e17356aa8aa52448c580fb196adba874c18b38f3
Proof 2 · Screenshot9210a11457493944d0e2501f0768f3a9eba27718daf8b843dc9d914dd852b590