Can BlazeSQL show what people have been asking?
BlazeSQL does not show a complete view of what people have been asking. Query review lists one request in the default view and still shows one user with the filter set to All, while the two chat rails split the five questions between the two accounts and one account's own chat history is shown.
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 is based on this test case.
Usage view across two accountsFailEvidence
Input 1: “As of September 2, 2026, what’s our total revenue in the last 30 days?”
Input 2: “What’s our most common payment method?”
Input 3: “How many complaints have we received on social media this month?”
Input 4: “How many customers currently have an active subscription?”
Input 5: “What’s our net promoter score for last quarter?”
Only the tool's reply to input 3 is copied here; its replies to inputs 1, 2, 4 and 5 were not copied as text. The rest of what the tool returned is shown in the evidence under Proofs.
Response 1 replies to Input 3.
Data gap - The ticket data only runs through August 2026, so September (this month) has no records yet. Broad search - I searched for social media complaints across all relevant columns (queue, about, subject, detail) using platform names (Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, etc.) in August too - still zero matches. Single queue - All tickets are logged under a generic 'support' queue with no social media channel differentiation. It appears that social media complaints are not being tracked in this database.
Transcribed from Proof 9 · Screenshot
| ✗ | Expected: The questions appear, attributable to the account that asked them, and the total matches what was run.Found: The page shows one user and one request, with attribution present but the other four questions absent. |
Attribution is present, but the usage view records only one request and one user, so it misses four of the five asked questions. That leaves the team view incomplete.
Views disagree. The Queries and Chats views do not show the same activity: one shows one request, while the other shows three chats.
Status changed. The same request later changed from Not verified to Verified, but the listing and count stayed the same.
Scope mismatch. The page says it covers every query and chat in the workspace, yet the admin's three questions are absent.
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 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.
| Level | Name | Scope |
|---|---|---|
| Benchmark | AI Database Agents → | 28 scenarios · 11 tools |
| Capability | Analytics & Observability → | |
| Scenario | Someone needs to see what people have been asking → | |
| Tool | BlazeSQL → |
Global scenario definition → · Global capability definition → · BlazeSQL 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.