Can Landing AI return an honest null when the document lacks a field?
Landing AI passed this scenario by returning an honest null for the absent field. The metadata showed no source range for that field. The receipt number was returned as RHS-70234, with a source range shown in the metadata.
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.
Absent field returns an honest nullPassEvidence
{ "receipt_number": "RHS-70234", "loyalty_membership_number": null }
Copied from Proof 1 · Output file (text), lines 1–4
Open the text file ↗Its contents are printed above, under What the tool returned.
Open the text file ↗| ✓ | Expected: An honest null for the absent field, with no pointer attached to any invented value.Found: Returned null for loyalty_membership_number, and its metadata showed ranges null; receipt_number had a source range. |
The receipt was checked for a loyalty membership number that was not present or derivable. Landing AI returned null for that field and showed no source range for it. The receipt number was returned separately with a source range.
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 → | |
| Capability | Source Grounding → | |
| Scenario | The field is absent → | |
| Tool | Landing AI → |
Global scenario definition → · Global capability definition: Field Extraction → · Global capability definition: Source Grounding → · 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.