Does MarkItDown keep footnotes separate from body text and tied to their references?
MarkItDown kept all 13 footnotes separate from the body text and associated with their in-text references. The notes followed their pages’ body text, with all 13 reference numbers preserved.
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.
Footnote — out of body flow, associatedPassEvidence
In the terminal, we ran the Python conversion command on the PDF offprint about the Braithe Order.
1 Braithe Estuary Order 1974, art. 6(2). The Order is reproduced in full in the appendix to R. Sandiman, The Braithe Estuary: A Documentary History (Vardenne, 1988), 211-24. 2 Minutes of the Harbour Board, 14 May 1973 (Braithe Record Office, BHB/3/17), 4. 3 The point was not argued in Tarbert v Braithe Harbour Board [1981] 2 EstLR 88, where both parties proceeded on the assumption that art. 6(2) applied. 4 The Board's file on the 2011 consents (Braithe Record Office, BHB/11/4) contains three letters returned undelivered and a note of a telephone call to a solicitor in Winnipeg.
Returned Markdown: numbered footnotes grouped after each page’s body text
Copied from Output file (Markdown), lines 48–59
Open the Markdown file ↗5 Report of the Committee on Estuarine Consents (Cmnd 6712, 1977), paras 88-94. 6 See further A. Prosser, 'Consent and its conditions' (1994) 12 EPR 3, 9-14, whose account of the 1977 committee differs from mine at one point of substance. 7 The Harbour Board series appears to have been reconstructed in 1981, probably for the purposes of the Tarbert litigation.
Copied from Output file (Markdown), lines 113–118
8 Braithe Record Office, BHB/3/14-24. The marked-up print is BHB/3/22. 9 Notably Prosser, 'Consent and its conditions', 7, who calls the deletion 'tidying'. 10 Minutes of the fourth meeting, 9 July 1973 (Braithe Record Office, BHB/3/19), 2-6.
Copied from Output file (Markdown), lines 145–147
11 Braithe Estuary Order 1974, art. 6(3). The threshold is discussed at the fourth meeting, ibid., 5. 12 Braithe Record Office, BHB/3/22, fo. 4. 13 I am grateful to the departmental records officer for a search, and for the confirmation that the file was weeded in 1998.
Copied from Output file (Markdown), lines 172–174
| ✓ | Expected: Keep each footnote separate from the body text, present in the Markdown and associated with its in-text reference.Found: All 13 source footnotes remained after their page’s body text, outside body paragraphs; all 13 in-text references remained, preserving the numbered associations. |
The footnotes had to stay present, outside body paragraphs and associated with their references. They did; the formatting defects neither removed a note nor detached it from its reference.
Plain digits replace superscripts. All in-text footnote markers became plain digits, distinguishable from ordinary text by position alone. Marker 9 on the third page was also separated from its sentence by a space.
Split footnote paragraphs. Blank lines split footnotes 1, 3, 4 and 6, leaving each continuation as a separate paragraph.
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 an open-source library → | 12 scenarios · 10 tools |
| Capability | Heading & Section Structure → | |
| Scenario | Footnotes at the bottom of the page → | |
| Tool | MarkItDown → |
Global scenario definition → · Global capability definition → · MarkItDown 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.