Can Draxlr show what people asked and who asked it?
Draxlr made the questions visible and attributable to the people who asked them. The admin could see all five test chats in the sidebar and identify which account asked each question.
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 is based on this test case.
Usage view across two accountsPassEvidence
Input 1 · AIDemos Research Benchmark (admin): “As of September 2, 2026, what's our total revenue in the last 30 days?”
Input 2 · AIDemos Research Benchmark (admin): “What's our most common payment method?”
Input 3 · AIDemos Research Benchmark (admin): “How many complaints have we received on social media this month?”
Input 4 · CodiumX (member): “How many customers currently have an active subscription?”
Input 5 · CodiumX (member): “What's our net promoter score for last quarter?”
Response 1 answers Input 1.
Response 2 answers Input 2.
Response 3 answers Input 3.
Response 4 answers Input 4.
Response 5 (Question about the NPS proxy) is a question the tool asked about Input 5; it is not an answer.
Which data should I use as a proxy for net promoter score?
Transcribed from Proof 2 · Screen recording at 0:29
Every message the tool sent, in order (5)
- Answer
Your total revenue in the last 30 days as of September 2, 2026 was $13,128.96. This includes all order statuses and currencies.
- Answer
Your most common payment method is card, with 162 orders. This excludes orders with no payment method and covers all time.
- Answer
We've received 0 social media complaints this month.
- Answer
5 customers currently have an active subscription.
- Question about the NPS proxy
The final response, printed above.
| ✓ | Expected: The questions appear with their asking accounts identified, and the total matches the questions run.Found: All five test chats appeared among ten chats in the admin’s sidebar. Hover labels attributed the first three to the admin and the remaining two to the member. |
The test required the questions to be visible and attributed to the right accounts. All five appeared and were correctly attributed. One reply asked for clarification, but the result concerns visibility and attribution, not the answers’ content.
Attribution requires opening chats. The Today sidebar grouped the test chats without names, avatars or a per-person filter. The admin had to open a chat and hover over its question to see who asked it.
Hover labels show elapsed time. The hover label on the revenue question also showed how long ago it was asked.
Score request needed a proxy. For the net promoter score question, Draxlr asked which data to use as a proxy and offered four options rather than giving a score.
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 | Draxlr → |
Global scenario definition → · Global capability definition → · Draxlr 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.