System: You are a helpful and precise assistant in checking the quality of the answer.
User: We would like to request your feedback on the performance of the response of the assistant to the user instruction displayed below. In the feedback, I want you to rate the quality of the response in these 3 categories according to each scoring rubric:

Comprehension: Does the response fulfill the requirements of the instruction by providing relevant information especially when the instruction is complex and includes multiple requirements? This includes responding in accordance with the explicit and implicit purpose of given instruction.
Score 1: The response is completely unrelated to the instruction, or the model entirely misunderstands the instruction.
Score 2: Most of the key points in the response are irrelevant to the instruction, and the response misses major requirements of the instruction.
Score 3: Some major points in the response contain irrelevant information or miss some requirements of the instruction.
Score 4: The response is relevant to the instruction but misses minor requirements of the instruction.
Score 5: The response is perfectly relevant to the instruction, and the model fulfills all of the requirements of the instruction.
Logical Correctness: Is the final answer provided by the response logically accurate and correct for an instruction that has a deterministic answer?
Score 1: The model's final answer is completely incorrect and lacks sound reasoning.
Score 2: The model's final answer contains significant errors that critically undermine its correctness.
Score 3: The model's final answer includes inaccuracies that require considerable effort to correct.
Score 4: The model's final answer contains minor errors, which are easy to rectify and do not significantly impact its overall correctness.
Score 5: The model's final answer is completely accurate and sound.
Readability: Is the response structured to promote readability and coherence? Does the response exhibit excellent organization?
Score 1: The response is completely unclear, making comprehension difficult.
Score 2: The response has significant areas of ambiguity or disorganization, critically affecting reader comprehension.
Score 3: The response contains some unclear components, or its organization could be improved.
Score 4: The response is generally understandable but could be further optimized for readability.
Score 5: The response is clear and well-organized, enabling the reader to effortlessly follow the content.
[Instruction]
pre_text: chairman and a director of the board of fis as well as the chairman of the board of lps . effective march 1 , 2010 , mr . kennedy and the company mutually agreed that he would no longer serve as an executive officer and director of the company and its subsidiaries . the revenue and expense items with lps are , therefore , summarized above as related party activity through march 1 , 2010 . we believe the amounts earned from or charged by us under each of the foregoing arrangements are fair and reasonable . we believe our service arrangements are priced within the range of prices we offer to third parties . however , the amounts we earned or that were charged under these arrangements were not negotiated at arm 2019s- length , and may not represent the terms that we might have obtained from an unrelated third party . discontinued operations 2014 related party activity through july 2 , 2008 , lps provided a number of services to fnf that are now presented as discontinued operations . these services included title agency services , software development services , real estate related services and other cost sharing services . these activities are included within net earnings from discontinued operations . ( 5 ) acquisitions the results of operations and financial position of the entities acquired during the years ended december 31 , 2010 , 2009 and 2008 are included in the consolidated financial statements from and after the date of acquisition . there were no significant acquisitions in 2010 and 2008 . metavante on october 1 , 2009 , we completed the acquisition of metavante ( the 201cmetavante acquisition 201d ) . metavante expanded the scale of fis core processing and payment capabilities , added trust and wealth management processing services and added to our eft capabilities with the nyce network . metavante also added significant scale to treasury and cash management offerings and provided an entry into the healthcare and government payments markets . pursuant to the agreement and plan of merger dated as of march 31 , 2009 , metavante became a wholly- owned subsidiary of fis . each issued and outstanding share of metavante common stock , par value $ 0.01 per share , was converted into 1.35 shares of fis common stock . in addition , outstanding metavante stock options and other stock-based awards were converted into comparable fis stock options and other stock-based awards at the same conversion ratio . the total purchase price was as follows ( in millions ) : . table: value of metavante common stock $ 4066.4 value of metavante stock awards 121.4 total purchase price $ 4187.8 post_text: we recorded a preliminary allocation of the purchase price to metavante tangible and identifiable intangible assets acquired and liabilities assumed based on their estimated fair values as of october 1 , 2009 . goodwill was fidelity national information services , inc . and subsidiaries notes to consolidated financial statements 2014 ( continued ) %%transmsg*** transmitting job : g26369 pcn : 064000000 ***%%pcmsg|64 |00007|yes|no|03/28/2011 17:32|0|0|page is valid , no graphics -- color : n| . question: what portion of total purchase price is related to stock awards?

[Ground truth Answer]
2.90%

[Assistant's Response]
The portion of the total purchase price related to stock awards is $121.4 million.

[The End of Assistant's Response]

Please give feedback on the assistant's responses. Also, provide the assistant with a score on a scale of 1 to 5 for each category, where a higher score indicates better overall performance. Make sure to give feedback or comments for each category first and then write the score for each category. Only write the feedback corresponding to the scoring rubric for each category. The scores of each category should be orthogonal, indicating that 'Efficiency of User Alignment' should not be considered for 'Readability of User Alignment' category, for example. 

Lastly, return a Python dictionary object that has skillset names as keys and the corresponding scores as values.

[System]



Assistant: