AI Demos Research — the structured-intelligence platform. Every verdict on these pages opens to the execution behind it.
Graded 7 October 2026

Can Landing AI extract a repeated set of records?

Landing AI extracted the repeated set of records in this run. The invoice table on page 3 returned three line items with the correct values and pairing; the delivery note says there were three lines and six units, and the schema asked for description and amount only.

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.

Repeated set with correct associationPassEvidence
What we sent
InputDocument (PDF)
Three-page invoice with the goods table on page 3 and three rows of items.
Open the PDF ↗
What the tool returned
Text19 lines
{
  "data": {
    "line_items": [
      { "description": "Dosing pump, 240V", "amount": "£680.00" },
      { "description": "Chemical feed tubing, 10m coil", "amount": "£144.00" },
      { "description": "Inline flow sensor", "amount": "£215.00" }
    ]
  },
  "extractionMetadata": {
    "line_items": [
      { "description": { "value": "Dosing pump, 240V", "ranges": [ { "start": 1331, "end": 1348 } ] }, "amount": { "value": "£680.00", "ranges": [ { "start": 1399, "end": 1406 } ] } },
      { "description": { "value": "Chemical feed tubing, 10m coil", "ranges": [ { "start": 1425, "end": 1455 } ] }, "amount": { "value": "£144.00", "ranges": [ { "start": 1505, "end": 1512 } ] } },
      { "description": { "value": "Inline flow sensor", "ranges": [ { "start": 1531, "end": 1549 } ] }, "amount": { "value": "£215.00", "ranges": [ { "start": 1600, "end": 1607 } ] } }
    ]
  },
  "extract_id": "extract-01m4ap2hbe5eq93kx9dpkczpp9",
  "parse_run_id": "parse-01m4ap1m5prk5hb4h1nsxcx67a",
  "created_at": "2026-10-07T08:01:04.908Z"
}

Copied from Proof 1 · Output file (text), lines 1–19

Open the text file ↗
Proof 1Output file (text)
Returned JSON with three line items and per-field ranges for the extracted values.

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

Open the text file ↗
Expected vs. Found
✓Expected: Every record, with the correct values and correct pairing.Found: Three records were returned in order, with no record dropped or duplicated; each amount matched its own row, not the unit price.
Supporting proof
Proof 2Screenshot
Web app screenshot showing the extracted items, the schema, and the highlighted source page.
Open original ↗
Why this result

The run was checked against the source table, the returned line items, and the screenshot. All three matched: three records, correct values, and correct pairing, with the amount column used instead of unit price.

Also observed on this row

Delivery note count. The delivery note says there were three lines and six units, which matches the three records and their quantities.

Schema scope. Only description and amount were requested, so code, quantity, and unit price were outside the run.

Tested by Rugved nichite · evidence dated 7 October 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
Landing AI
Build or version
DPT-3 Pro (parse model; app version not exposed)
Surface
Web app
Set up before the run
A one-page set with several real records was needed. The task was to extract every member of a clearly delimited set.
Mode
Extract
Extraction schema
Array of Object
Tested
7 October 2026 · Rugved nichite

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
9 October 2026First publishedStructured Document Extraction 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/structured-document-extraction/results/landing-ai/a-repeated-set-of-records · 1 pass · 0 fail · coverage 1/1 · graded 2026-10-07

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 · 176 KB
Proof 1 · Output file (text) ↗text/plain; charset=utf-8 · 1 KB
Proof 2 · Screenshot ↗image/png · 125 KB
File fingerprints (SHA-256)

A fingerprint identifies the exact file used for this result.

Input · Document (PDF)89fb14d7c0897bbfef47ffa3aa3930ee7eccf62c8a9430710d1906598c9bdfec
Proof 1 · Output file (text)1093ebfee32a0b173ba1cc473722faa38d012f514bca2db1d4026f005acc0471
Proof 2 · Screenshotd71854c6b063c564f2828eca70df2a2046ac8e8cb1d728e3dc82e287ab0ff9be