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:

Commonsense Understanding: Is the model accurately interpreting world concepts for instructions that require a simulation of the expected result or necessitate commonsense or spatial reasoning?
Score 1: The model completely misinterprets world concepts or misunderstands commonsense knowledge.
Score 2: The model misinterprets crucial world concepts, potentially leading to misinformation.
Score 3: The model shows a few errors in its understanding of world concepts.
Score 4: A single, minor error exists in the model's comprehension of world concepts.
Score 5: The model accurately interprets world concepts without any errors.
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.
[Instruction]
We know: Tom worked for the UFC. He got a cold the morning of a fight but decided to go to work anyway.\nWe want to understand: Should Tom have stayed home?\nWhat new piece of information would best help us get this understanding?

[Ground truth Answer]
Tom is a fighter.

[Assistant's Response]
To determine whether Tom should have stayed home despite having a cold on the day of a UFC fight, several key pieces of information would be essential. Here’s a structured approach to evaluate this situation:

1. **Severity of Symptoms**: Understanding the specific symptoms Tom experienced is crucial. For instance, if he had a fever, significant fatigue, or severe congestion, these could impair his ability to perform his duties effectively and safely. Mild symptoms might not be as concerning, but more severe symptoms could pose risks.

2. **UFC Health Policies**: Familiarity with UFC's policies regarding health and fitness for staff on fight day would provide insight into whether Tom's condition violated any protocols. Organizations often have guidelines to ensure the safety of all participants, and knowing these could clarify Tom's responsibilities.

3. **Risk of Spreading Illness**: Assessing the potential risk of transmitting his illness to others, particularly fighters who are in close contact during weigh-ins and the fight, is critical. The UFC environment is high-stakes, and the health of fighters is paramount. If Tom's cold was contagious, his presence could jeopardize the health of others.

4. **Role and Responsibilities**: Understanding Tom's specific role on fight day would also be helpful. Some positions may require high levels of physical interaction or decision-making that could be compromised by illness, while others might be less affected.

By gathering information on these aspects, one could better evaluate whether Tom's decision to go to work was responsible or if he should have prioritized his health and the safety of others by staying home.

[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: