Does Nutrient.io keep ordinary digital text complete and unchanged?
Nutrient.io failed on ordinary digital text. The returned Markdown kept the words, but four page breaks merged the running header into body text, while two breaks stayed clean.
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.
Ordinary digital text — complete and unchangedFailEvidence
Page 1 of 7
Returned Markdown: the same note with page-break splices
Copied from Output file (Markdown), line 72
Open the Markdown file ↗Braithe Estuary Partnership have shown so far.
Copied from Output file (Markdown), lines 77–78
Braithe Estuary Partnership Briefing note BEP/BN/2026/04 mobilisation charge will fall in a year when the dredging cycle offers less material. The Board's
Copied from Output file (Markdown), lines 144–145
Braithe Estuary Partnership Briefing note BEP/BN/2026/04 instructions. The second concerned turbidity in the creek at Vardenne, which was visible for
Copied from Output file (Markdown), lines 274–275
Braithe Estuary Partnership Briefing note BEP/BN/2026/04 view is that mechanical spreading would probably move material landward faster. The
Copied from Output file (Markdown), lines 340–341
{ "status_code": 200, "headers": { "date": "Wed, 09 Sep 2026 08:51:46 GMT", "content-type": "text/markdown", "content-length": "19295", "content-disposition": "attachment; filename=\"result.md\"", "server": "Cowboy", "x-pspdfkit-remaining-credits": "49", "x-pspdfkit-request-cost": "1", "x-request-id": "GNObAET9p-axHo8AAPDB" }, "content_type": "text/markdown", "body_bytes": 19295, "delivery": "raw markdown body (content-type text/markdown)", "markdown_chars": 19282, "zip_members": null, "asset_names": null }
HTTP exchange: request and raw Markdown response
Copied from Captured file (JSON), response
Open the whole JSON file ↗| ✗ | Expected: All text remains present and unchanged, with nothing missing, garbled, or invented.Found: The wording stayed intact, but four page breaks merged the header into the body, creating sentence-like text the source did not contain. |
It had to keep the document complete and unchanged. The comparison found no missing or invented words, but four page breaks merged the running header into body text, so the output included sentence-like text the source did not contain.
Some clean breaks. At the other two page breaks, the header is followed by a blank line, so the splice did not happen at every break.
Page numbers stayed separate. Each page number stayed on its own line.
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 | Converting a complex PDF into clean Markdown with a hosted API → | 12 scenarios · 13 tools |
| Capability | Text Fidelity → | |
| Scenario | An ordinary digital text document → | |
| Tool | Nutrient.io → |
Global scenario definition → · Global capability definition → · Nutrient.io 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.