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.
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.
[Instruction]
Determine whether the document supports or contradicts the given hypothesis. If there is no mention of it, output 'NotMentioned.'\n\n<Document>\nNON DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT\n(Generic NDA provided by Pitch Deck Fire)\nTHIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as on _________________ (“Effective Date”), by and between ____________________, (“the Disclosing Party”) and ___Pitch Deck Fire___, (“the Recipient”) (collectively, “the Parties”).\nPurpose for Disclosure (“Business Purpose”): Relevant information will be disclosed by the\nDisclosing Party to the Recipient for the purposes of providing a quote for services and for providing services, generally the completion of a pitch deck or similar materials by the Recipient for Disclosing Party’s use at their discretion. Products of services also fall under this non-disclosure agreement, with the sole exception that the Recipient can use products of services as portfolio examples on the Pitchdeckfire.com website or otherwise, provided that the images are in a non-editable format, and scrubbed clean of branding and specific content (blurred out all logos, company and industry specific content), unless contrary written permission is given by the disclosing party.\nThe Parties hereby agree as follows:\n1. For purposes of this Agreement, "Confidential Information" shall mean any and all non-public information, including, without limitation, technical, developmental, marketing, sales, operating, performance, cost, know-how, business plans, business methods, and process information, disclosed to the Recipient. For convenience, the Disclosing Party may, but is not required to, mark written Confidential Information with the legend "Confidential" or an equivalent designation.\n2. All Confidential Information disclosed to the Recipient will be used solely for the Business Purpose and for no other purpose whatsoever. The Recipient agrees to keep the Disclosing Party’s Confidential Information confidential and to protect the confidentiality of such Confidential Information with the same degree of care with which it protects the confidentiality of its own confidential information, but in no event with less than a reasonable degree of care. Recipient may disclose Confidential Information only to its employees, agents, consultants and contractors on a need-to-know basis, and only if such employees, agents, consultants and contractors have executed appropriate written agreements with Recipient sufficient to enable Recipient to enforce all the provisions of this Agreement. Recipient shall not make any copies of Disclosing Party’s Confidential Information except as needed for the Business Purpose. At the request of Disclosing Party, Recipient shall return to Disclosing Party all Confidential Information of Disclosing Party (including any copies thereof) or certify the destruction thereof.\n3. All right title and interest in and to the Confidential Information shall remain with Disclosing Party or its licensors. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to grant any rights to Recipient under any patents, copyrights, trademarks, or trade secrets of Disclosing Party. ALL CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION IS PROVIDED "AS IS". THE DISCLOSING PARTY MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR OTHERWISE, REGARDING NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THIRD PARTY RIGHTS OR ITS ACCURACY, COMPLETENESS OR PERFORMANCE.\n4. The obligations and limitations set forth herein regarding Confidential Information shall not apply to information which is: (a) at any time in the public domain, other than by a breach on the part of the Recipient; or (b) at any time rightfully received from a third party which had the right to and transmits it to the Recipient without any obligation of confidentiality.\n5. In the event that the Recipient shall breach this Agreement, or in the event that a breach appears to be imminent, the Disclosing Party shall be entitled to all legal and equitable remedies afforded it by law, and in addition may recover all reasonable costs and attorneys' fees incurred in seeking such remedies. If the Confidential Information is sought by any third party, including by way of subpoena or other court process, the Recipient shall inform the Disclosing Party of the request in sufficient time to permit the Disclosing Party to object to and, if necessary, seek court intervention to prevent the disclosure.\n6. The validity, construction and enforceability of this Agreement shall be governed in all respects by the law of the state of Colorado. This Agreement may not be amended except in writing signed by a duly authorized representative of the respective Parties. This Agreement shall control in the event of a conflict with any other agreement between the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof.\nIN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first above written.\nDisclosing Party: The Recipient:\nCompany: _______________________ Company: _____Pitch Deck Fire______\nName: __________________________ Name: _______Stacie Shaw__________\nRole: ___________________________ Role: _________Founder___________\nPhone Number: __________________ Phone Number: ___<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED_PHONE_NUMBER>____\nSignature: Signature:\n_______________________________ _______________________________\n\n\n<Hypothesis>\nAll Confidential Information shall be expressly identified by the Disclosing Party.

[Ground truth Answer]
Contradiction

[Assistant's Response]
The document in question is a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) that outlines the handling of Confidential Information between the Disclosing Party and the Recipient, Pitch Deck Fire. The hypothesis states that "All Confidential Information shall be expressly identified by the Disclosing Party."

Upon reviewing the document, it is clear that the NDA does not support this hypothesis. While it mentions that the Disclosing Party may mark written Confidential Information with the legend "Confidential" or an equivalent designation, it explicitly states that they are not required to do so. This indicates that there is no obligation for the Disclosing Party to expressly identify all Confidential Information.

Therefore, the conclusion is that the document contradicts the hypothesis.

[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: