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:

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.
Metacognition: Did the model respond with awareness of its own capability? Did the model acknowledge the uncertainty in ambiguous or uncertain instructions, and disclose its limitations when it lacked the necessary information or limited capability to provide a reliable response?
Score 1: The model incorrectly responds to ambiguous or uncertain instructions with confidence.
Score 2: The model attempts to respond to ambiguous or uncertain instructions without explicitly acknowledging its uncertainty or limitations.
Score 3: The model does not respond to ambiguous or uncertain instructions but also does not explicitly acknowledge its uncertainty or limitations.
Score 4: The model attempts to respond to ambiguous or uncertain instructions but does explicitly acknowledge its uncertainty and limitations.
Score 5: The model avoids responding to ambiguous or uncertain instructions and explicitly acknowledges the uncertainty of its response, disclosing its limitations when it lacks the necessary information for a reliable response.
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.
[Instruction]
Determine whether the document supports or contradicts the given hypothesis. If there is no mention of it, output 'NotMentioned.'\n\n<Document>\nConfidentiality Agreement\nbetween\nHelu Kabel GmbH\nDieselstraße 8-12\n71282 Hemmingen\n-Supplier-\nand\n[COMPANY]\n[CONTACT PERSON]\n[ADDRESS]\n[POSTCODE, CITY]\n[COUNTRY]\n-Buyer-\n1. The parties maintain a supply relationship. In the frame of this cooperation, confidential information also be exchanged.\n2. Every contract party can disclose confidential information to the other contract party orally or in writing. If the disclosure is in writing, the disclosing party will mark the confidential documents with the additional terms “Confidential” or “Liable to Secrecy” so that it is apparent to the other party which information is especially in need to protection.\n3. The contract parties are obligated to preclude disclosure of confidential information to third parties. The parties will entrust confidential information solely to those employees, consultants and third party companies which are concerned with the processing of the order and which are legally or contractually obligated to secrecy.\n4. To the extent that technical drawings of certain third-party companies are not to be made known, the buyer must point this fact out on its own initiative.\n5. All confidential information remains the property of the disclosing contract party.\n6. The confidentiality agreement does not apply to statements of the company Helukabel in its catalogues, datasheets and on the homepage and also not to information which\na) the receiving party was already aware of or which was developed by the disclosing party itself independent of the disclosure,\nb) is publicly known without this agreement having been broken,\nc) was received by a third party without infringement of this or any other confidentiality agreement.\n7. If the recipient is forced to expose the confidential information due to a legal regulation, a legally valid judgement or a non-disputable official decision or decree in part or in whole, it shall immediately inform the owner of the confidential information in writing so that the owner can take measures to protect the confidential information.\n8. This agreement becomes effective with the signatures of both parties and is valid for three years. It is tacitly extended by one year if it is not terminated three months before its expiration.\n9. At the end of the contract the receiving party shall return the confidential information and any possibly extant copies after receipt of a written request, provided that this is technically feasible and does not violate the retention obligations. As an alternative to that, the receiving party can also ensure in writing the destruction of the received documentation if that is technically feasible.\n10. The confidential information will be provided as is. The disclosing party does not assume any warranty for the correctness, completeness or usability of the confidential information.\n11. The parties agree that for this agreement German law applies excluding the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods. The legal venue for all disputes arising from this agreement is the head office of the company Helukabel in Hemmingen.\nHemmingen, ___________ _____________________\nPlace, Date\n_________________________ _____________________\nHelu Kabel GmbH Buyer\n\n\n<Hypothesis>\nReceiving Party shall not disclose the fact that Agreement was agreed or negotiated.

[Ground truth Answer]
NotMentioned

[Assistant's Response]
NotMentioned. 

The document does not explicitly state that the receiving party is prohibited from disclosing the fact that the agreement was agreed or negotiated. The focus of the confidentiality agreement is on the protection of confidential information exchanged between the parties, rather than on the disclosure of the existence or negotiation of the agreement itself.

[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: