Can Landing AI total values across all uploaded documents?
Landing AI failed to total values across every document in the project. The shown schema returned each file's own total instead of one cross-document total, and chat replied that it could not find the answer in the provided document. Blackwood showed £6,591.24 and HIS-4402 showed £1,246.80; Thistlewood is shown as outdated under the current schema.
1 of 1 test case failed
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.
Total across every documentFailEvidence
“What is the total of the total due amounts across all three invoices in this project (Blackwood, Thistlewood and HIS-4402)?”
The tool's reply is shown in the screenshots under Proofs.
| ✗ | Expected: The correct total across every document.Found: It returned each file's own total on the shown files, and Chat said it could not find the answer in the provided document. |
The product was checked for one total across all documents. Instead, the shown schema returned each file's own total on the files that ran, and Chat said it could not find the answer in the provided document.
Thistlewood outdated. The Thistlewood file is shown as outdated, so its current-schema result is not displayed in that frame.
Repeated chat refusal. Chat gave the same refusal again, which matches a file-by-file scope.
Per-file totals match. Each shown extraction matches the source invoice total for that file.
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 | Querying → | |
| Scenario | Aggregate across documents → | |
| Tool | Landing AI → |
Global scenario definition → · Global capability definition → · Landing 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.
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.