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.
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.
Factuality: Did the model extract pertinent and accurate background knowledge without any misinformation when factual knowledge retrieval is needed? Is the response supported by reliable evidence or citation of the source of its information?
Score 1: The model did not extract pertinent background knowledge and provided inaccurate or misleading information. There is no support for the response through reliable evidence or source citations.
Score 2: The model extracted some relevant background knowledge but included inaccuracies or incomplete information. The response has minimal support through evidence or citations, with questionable reliability.
Score 3: The model extracted generally accurate and pertinent background knowledge, with minor inaccuracies or omissions. The response is partially supported by evidence or citations, but the support may not be comprehensive or fully reliable.
Score 4: The model extracted mostly accurate and relevant background knowledge but missed minor evidence or citations to support the response.
Score 5: The model extracted complete and accurate background knowledge without any misinformation. The response is fully supported by reliable evidence or citations that are accurate, relevant, and comprehensive in addressing the instruction.
[Instruction]
write an introduction of a person for resume who worked as an in-house IT for 18 years, managed team of 4 and 9 site and satellite offices with total 200 users. He's familiar with network and system infrastructure, server virtualization, cloud services and the migration.

[Ground truth Answer]
John Doe is a highly accomplished IT professional with an impressive career spanning 18 years in a dynamic in-house IT role. As a proactive and organized leader, he has effectively managed a sizable team of four while overseeing a network of nine site and satellite offices, catering to the diverse needs of 200 users. His extensive expertise extends across a broad range of critical areas, including network and system infrastructure, server virtualization, and cloud services. John's proven track record in facilitating seamless migration projects stands testament to his ability to anticipate and overcome challenges, thereby facilitating high-impact tech solutions that drive organizational success.

[Assistant's Response]
**Introduction**

With 18 years of experience as an in-house IT professional, [Your Name] has consistently showcased exceptional leadership and technical acumen in managing and optimizing IT operations. As an adept IT manager, [Your Name] has successfully led a team of four skilled professionals, efficiently overseeing nine site and satellite offices that support a total of 200 users. [Your Name] possesses extensive expertise in network and system infrastructure, server virtualization, and cloud services, with a proven track record in managing complex migration projects. Known for a strategic approach to problem-solving and a commitment to aligning technology solutions with organizational objectives, [Your Name] is dedicated to driving efficiency and fostering innovation within IT environments.

[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: