AI Demos Research — the structured-intelligence platform. Every verdict on these pages opens to the execution behind it.
Graded 8 November 2026

Can Extend AI extract records from a set that contains a non-record?

Extend AI extracted the genuine invoice items without including the total row. It returned five items from five genuine source rows, with none missing or substituted.

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.

Total row is not a memberPassEvidence
What we sent
Input 1Document (PDF)
Input invoice: five product rows followed by a total row
Open the PDF ↗
Input 2File (JSON)
Input schema: genuine-item extraction with summary and total rows excluded
JSON
{
  "type": "object",
  "properties": {
    "line_items": {
      "type": "array",
      "description": "List of genuine line items only. Do not include any summary or total row, even if it has the same column shape/position as a real line item.",
      "items": {
        "type": "object",
        "properties": {
          "description": {
            "type": "string",
            "description": "The description of the line item."
          },
          "quantity": {
            "type": "number",
            "description": "The quantity of the line item."
          },
          "unit_price": {
            "type": "number",
            "description": "The unit price of the line item."
          },
          "amount": {
            "type": "number",
            "description": "The amount of the line item."
          }
        },
        "required": ["description", "quantity", "unit_price", "amount"]
      }
    }
  },
  "required": ["line_items"]
}
Open the JSON file ↗
What the tool returned
JSON
[
  {
    "amount": 504,
    "quantity": 6,
    "unit_price": 84,
    "description": "Retail Shelving Unit - Steel, 5-Tier"
  },
  {
    "amount": 620,
    "quantity": 2,
    "unit_price": 310,
    "description": "Checkout Counter - Laminate Top"
  },
  {
    "amount": 182,
    "quantity": 4,
    "unit_price": 45.5,
    "description": "Security Tag Deactivator - Handheld"
  },
  {
    "amount": 486,
    "quantity": 3,
    "unit_price": 162,
    "description": "Price Label Printer - Thermal"
  },
  {
    "amount": 190,
    "quantity": 5,
    "unit_price": 38,
    "description": "Shopping Basket - 20L, Set of 10"
  }
]

Extraction output: five items and no total row

Copied from Output file (JSON), value › line_items

Open the whole JSON file ↗
Expected vs. Found
✓Expected: Extract the five genuine invoice items and exclude the total row.Found: It returned five items against five genuine invoice rows, with no total row included and no genuine item missing.
Supporting proof
Proof 1Screenshot
Playground screenshot: the invoice, exclusion instruction and five-row result
Open original ↗
Why this result

The five returned items are the five genuine invoice rows, not just a set of the right size. Excluding summary rows was explicitly requested through the schema, so this demonstrates instructed exclusion rather than unprompted recognition.

Also observed in this test case

Source citations for shelving item. The steel shelving-unit item has source citations for its description, quantity, unit price and amount, including page numbers, marked source areas and reference text.

Tested by Rugved Nichite · evidence dated 25 September 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
Extend AI
Build or version
Not exposed by the hosted product
Surface
Web app
Set up before the run
The invoice had to include one explicitly labelled total row in the same table and columns as genuine items. Its extraction schema had to request genuine items only.
Line items description
List of genuine line items only. Do not include any summary or total row, even if it has the same column shape/position as a real line item.
Schema
One line items field, an array of objects with description (text), quantity, unit price and amount (numbers)
Tested
25 September 2026 · Rugved Nichite

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 publishedStructured Document Extraction 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/structured-document-extraction/results/extend-ai/the-set-contains-a-non-record · 1 pass · 0 fail · coverage 1/1 · graded 2026-11-08

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.

Input 1 · Document (PDF) ↗application/pdf · 55 KB
Output file (JSON) ↗application/json · 10 KB
Input 2 · File (JSON) ↗application/json · 1 KB
Proof 1 · Screenshot ↗image/png · 181 KB
File fingerprints (SHA-256)

A fingerprint identifies the exact file used for this result.

Input 1 · Document (PDF)791590c9d422110ebebf3c1e434eebac20aff3c6728024693becc870818c26d8
Output file (JSON)41ed605bf5f1d6c66b2c7dfac607c7292d19b1e93764d729347865f364a98f88
Input 2 · File (JSON)da85bc69a575b30b13499d9b45202b2bbbe31fd57a4b6e8edf7eab98ab2e20ed
Proof 1 · Screenshote5de31f817d3501e636dcd0a61622feb9a31eb5903eb322ef631826f61bc3730