AI Demos Research — the structured-intelligence platform. Every verdict on these pages opens to the execution behind it.
Graded 3 November 2026

Does Intercom Fin choose the right source or action for a request?

Intercom Fin passed this order-status request. It answered from the order system, and the returned shipped status, carrier, tracking number, and delivery address matched what it told the customer.

1 of 1 test case passed

Every test case in this scenario has a result.

Pass rate100%1 of 1 gradable
Coverage1 of 1test case 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 is based on this test case.

Order status must come from the order systemPassEvidence
What we sent

“where is order 41982?”

What the tool returned

Order 41982 has already shipped. Carrier: UPS. Tracking number: 1Z999AA10123456784. Shipped: Oct 26, 2026. Estimated delivery: Oct 29, 2026. Delivery address: 1470 Blake Street, Apt 6B, Denver, CO 80202. You can follow the shipment using the UPS tracking number on the UPS website to see the latest location and delivery updates.

Transcribed from Proof 1 · Screen recording at 0:08

Expected vs. Found
✓Expected: Use the order system, not the knowledge base, and answer with the real status.Found: Fin used the order system, not the knowledge base, and returned the shipped status with matching carrier, tracking number, and delivery address.
Supporting proof
Proof 1Screen recording
Screen recording: order-status chat, connector log, and returned order details
Key moments
Open original ↗
Why this result

The request needed the order system, and the reply matched the connector's shipped status, carrier, tracking number, and delivery address. A single successful connector execution ties that answer to the order API, so this is a pass.

Also observed in this test case

Single connector call. The connector shows one execution in the window, and it succeeded.

Shipping tip added. Fin also suggested checking UPS for live shipment updates, which goes beyond the order record.

Tested by Ajay Vekhande · evidence dated 3 November 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
Intercom Fin
Build or version
Not exposed by the hosted product
Plan or tier
Advanced (Free trial)
Surface
Web app
Set up before the run
The order system had the shipped order, and the knowledge base had no per-order data.
Connector
Get Order Details
Connector endpoint
GET https://action-api.futuresmart.ai/order?order_number={{order_number}}
Connector description
Looks up a customer order by order number and returns status, item, total, carrier, tracking, and delivery details.
Connector status
Live on the workspace
Tested
3 November 2026 · Ajay Vekhande

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 test case's result says which one 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 test case's result 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
10 November 2026First publishedAI Customer Support Chatbots 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/ai-customer-support-chatbots/results/fin/source-action-disambiguation · 1 pass · 0 fail · coverage 1/1 · graded 2026-11-03

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.

Proof 1 · Screen recording5bd7561ca3695aeac87d1df4fab438aa1482cddf39555bfaa23e10cdbac9ed3d