Can FutureSmart Document Intelligence use a supplied definition to resolve which value fits the field name?
FutureSmart Document Intelligence returned the consignment reference, not the more prominent invoice number, when the supplied definition said which field counted. It output `reference_number = CFS-CN-40821` from the invoice, matching the value identified by the definition and not the prominent candidate.
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.
Definition overrides the prominent numberPassEvidence
“The consignment reference number - the identifier tied to the physical shipment. This is NOT the invoice number, even though the invoice number appears more prominently (labelled and repeated in the footer of every page).”
{ "summary": "This document is an invoice from Calderwood Freight Services to Vantage Retail Distribution for the transport of goods from Leeds to Portsmouth. It confirms the successful delivery of the consignment on March 7, 2026, with no reported damages or exceptions.", "document_type": "invoice", "reference_number": "CFS-CN-40821" }
Copied from Proof 1 · Output file (JSON), lines 1–5
Open the JSON file ↗Its contents are printed above, under What the tool returned.
Open the JSON file ↗These are scenario-level criteria. Each test case's Expected and Found are listed separately.
- Whether the returned field value follows the supplied definition when more than one plausible value is present.
- Whether the tool resolves the ambiguity from schema context rather than from the most visible candidate.
- Whether the extracted record contains the schema-selected value and not another plausible value.
| ✓ | Found: It returned CFS-CN-40821, the consignment reference, instead of the more prominent invoice number. |
The field definition excludes the more prominent invoice number and selects the consignment reference instead. The saved output returned CFS-CN-40821, matching that definition.
Page-three extra mention. CFS-CN-40821 also appears once on page 3 in an exceptions paragraph. Even so, CFS-7710 remains the more prominent candidate because it appears six times, including every page footer.
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 | Structured Document Extraction → | 19 scenarios · 10 tools |
| Capability | Field Extraction → | |
| Scenario | The value needs a supplied definition → | |
| Tool | FutureSmart Document Intelligence → |
Global scenario definition → · Global capability definition →
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.