It generally extracts bank-statement and invoice fields correctly, including customer, branch, summary, account, balance, and invoice totals/metadata, but one invoice payment_terms field kept the source label instead of only the requested value.

◐ Mixedno artifactTest date not recordedRetab
What was measured
Extraction Accuracy

Are field values correct, complete, and free of OCR or parsing errors, including numerical precision on financial fields?

decisive for this rankingtransformation

Correct field values are the core of the job; wrong or incomplete extraction means the tool failed to retrieve the structured data from the document. (3 of 3 judges)

What was given, what came back

Input — what we sent
No input — this is a capability finding
The observation is about the tool itself rather than one test input, so there is nothing to show on this side by design.
Output — unretouched
No output artifact
The verdict rests on the tester's written observation alone — no file was captured for this cell.
Provenance
Observation
2ab75264-3655-4611-88e7-877f52d4ec69
Evidence run
a061b9e7-a9c5-443d-a171-b296aaf51b8c
Study
Extract and query structured data from documents using natural language
Research task
86b9y25e5
Tested at
not recorded
Source
aggregate-synthesis
Evidence state
observed
Proof shown
no artifact
Cost / latency
not captured
Repeat run
not captured
Tester
not captured

The last three rows are honest blanks, not placeholders — our capture has no field for them yet.

Query this
get_evidence({
  tool: "retab"
})
MCP · mcp.aidemos.com/api/mcp
Free with attribution.
Same input, same check — 0 other tools
measured on Extraction Accuracy

No other tool was measured on this criterion for this input.

Real inputs and real outputs, no retouching · every cell queryable via API & MCP · aidemos.com