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.
Completeness: Does the response provide a sufficient explanation? Comprehensiveness and thoroughness of the response should be considered, which depends on the breadth of topics covered and the level of detail provided within each topic.
Score 1: The response doesn't include any specifics or examples to support the statements made.
Score 2: The response does not provide sufficient details or supportive examples, requiring a major effort to make the response more complete.
Score 3: It is a decent response, but the breadth and depth of the response are rather limited. The details and examples used to substantiate the response may be insufficient.
Score 4: The response provides detailed explanations, but there is room for enhancement. The response could be further improved by including more details and supportive examples.
Score 5: The response fully provides comprehensive explanations. It delves deep into the topic, providing as much detail as possible, and it offers several examples to back up its points.
Conciseness: Is the response presented in a concise manner for the reader without any unnecessary information?
Score 1: The response is highly redundant or contains a lot of unnecessary information, requiring a complete rewrite for optimal clarity and efficiency.
Score 2: The response lacks conciseness and needs a substantial rewrite for better optimization.
Score 3: The response is somewhat concise but includes unnecessary information, requiring some edits for improved optimization.
Score 4: The response is mostly concise but could benefit from minor edits for better optimization.
Score 5: The response is optimally concise and does not contain any unnecessary information, requiring no further optimization.
[Instruction]
Please prepare a table containing a summary of the information of the participants at the conference.
Input: The conference was called to discuss how to improve the quality of education in schools. The main speaker was Professor Crew Purdie (cpurdie@email.com), who spoke about the importance of setting high standards for students and teachers. He said that schools should be places where students can learn and be challenged. Other speakers included Teacher Oliver Malachi (oliver@email.com) and Parent Kolby Reese (kolbyreese82@email.com). The teacher talked about the need for teachers to be well-prepared and to have high expectations for their students. The parent spoke about the need for parents to be involved in their children's education. There was also a discussion about the importance of funding for schools.

[Ground truth Answer]
Name | Email | Occupation
Crew Purdie | cpurdie@email.com | Professor
Oliver Malachi | oliver@email.com | Teacher
Kolby Reese | kolbyreese82@email.com | Parent

[Assistant's Response]
Here’s a summary table of the participants at the conference:

| Name                   | Role           | Email                  | Key Points Discussed                                                                 |
|------------------------|----------------|------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Professor Crew Purdie  | Main Speaker    | cpurdie@email.com      | Importance of setting high standards for students and teachers; schools should challenge students. |
| Teacher Oliver Malachi  | Speaker        | oliver@email.com       | Need for teachers to be well-prepared and have high expectations for students.       |
| Parent Kolby Reese      | Speaker        | kolbyreese82@email.com | Importance of parental involvement in children's education.                          |

The conference focused on improving the quality of education in schools, including discussions on funding for schools.

[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: