aveni-ai/aveni-bench-tat-qa huggingface dataset:
A reconciliation of the beginning and ending amount of unrecognized tax benefits is as follows (in thousands): The provision for uncertain tax positions relates to business in territories outside of the US. The Company’s policy is to classify interest and penalties on uncertain tax positions as a component of tax expense. The Company does not expect the change in uncertain tax positions to have a material impact on its financial position, results of operations, or liquidity. The Company is subject to US federal income tax as well as to income tax in multiple state and foreign jurisdictions, including the UK. Federal income tax returns of the Company are subject to IRS examination for the 2016 through 2019 tax years. State income tax returns are subject to examination for the 2015 through 2019 tax years. Currently, an audit is occurring in the United Kingdom for the year ended December 31, 2017. There are no ongoing audits in any other significant foreign tax jurisdictions.

Year Ended December 31,

2019	2018	2017

Balance at January 1	$1,402	$1,271	$276

Increases for tax positions related to the current year	—	131	995

Decreases for tax positions related to the current year	(1,402)	—	—

Balance at December 31	$—	$1,402	$1,271

Question: What is the percentage change in balance at January 1 and December 31 in 2017?
Answer: 360.51
5. Remuneration continued Remuneration at a glance 2019 How we performed The above figures exclude the acquisition of Thermocoax.

Remuneration key performance indicator	2019 actual	2019 threshold	2019 target	2019 maximum	Remuneration measure

Group operating profit (£m)	277.3	256.7	270.3	283.8	Annual Incentive Plan

Group cash generation (£m)	296.4	270.7	285.0	299.2	Annual Incentive Plan

Group ROCE (%)	54.5	50.1	52.7	55.3	Annual Incentive Plan

2017-2019 EPS (%)	57.5	27.6	N/A	52.3	Performance Share Plan

2017-2019 relative TSR (percentile TSR)	94th	50th	N/A	75th	Performance Share Plan

Question: What do the figures in the table exclude?
Answer: the acquisition of Thermocoax
5. Remuneration continued Remuneration at a glance 2019 How we performed The above figures exclude the acquisition of Thermocoax.

Remuneration key performance indicator	2019 actual	2019 threshold	2019 target	2019 maximum	Remuneration measure

Group operating profit (£m)	277.3	256.7	270.3	283.8	Annual Incentive Plan

Group cash generation (£m)	296.4	270.7	285.0	299.2	Annual Incentive Plan

Group ROCE (%)	54.5	50.1	52.7	55.3	Annual Incentive Plan

2017-2019 EPS (%)	57.5	27.6	N/A	52.3	Performance Share Plan

2017-2019 relative TSR (percentile TSR)	94th	50th	N/A	75th	Performance Share Plan

Question: What was the maximum group operating profit in 2019? 
Answer: 283.8
5. Remuneration continued Remuneration at a glance 2019 How we performed The above figures exclude the acquisition of Thermocoax.

Remuneration key performance indicator	2019 actual	2019 threshold	2019 target	2019 maximum	Remuneration measure

Group operating profit (£m)	277.3	256.7	270.3	283.8	Annual Incentive Plan

Group cash generation (£m)	296.4	270.7	285.0	299.2	Annual Incentive Plan

Group ROCE (%)	54.5	50.1	52.7	55.3	Annual Incentive Plan

2017-2019 EPS (%)	57.5	27.6	N/A	52.3	Performance Share Plan

2017-2019 relative TSR (percentile TSR)	94th	50th	N/A	75th	Performance Share Plan

Question: What are the plans under remuneration measure?
Answer: Annual Incentive Plan; Performance Share Plan
5. Remuneration continued Remuneration at a glance 2019 How we performed The above figures exclude the acquisition of Thermocoax.

Remuneration key performance indicator	2019 actual	2019 threshold	2019 target	2019 maximum	Remuneration measure

Group operating profit (£m)	277.3	256.7	270.3	283.8	Annual Incentive Plan

Group cash generation (£m)	296.4	270.7	285.0	299.2	Annual Incentive Plan

Group ROCE (%)	54.5	50.1	52.7	55.3	Annual Incentive Plan

2017-2019 EPS (%)	57.5	27.6	N/A	52.3	Performance Share Plan

2017-2019 relative TSR (percentile TSR)	94th	50th	N/A	75th	Performance Share Plan

Question: How many remuneration key performance indicators used Annual Incentive Plan as the remuneration measure?
Answer: 3
5. Remuneration continued Remuneration at a glance 2019 How we performed The above figures exclude the acquisition of Thermocoax.

Remuneration key performance indicator	2019 actual	2019 threshold	2019 target	2019 maximum	Remuneration measure

Group operating profit (£m)	277.3	256.7	270.3	283.8	Annual Incentive Plan

Group cash generation (£m)	296.4	270.7	285.0	299.2	Annual Incentive Plan

Group ROCE (%)	54.5	50.1	52.7	55.3	Annual Incentive Plan

2017-2019 EPS (%)	57.5	27.6	N/A	52.3	Performance Share Plan

2017-2019 relative TSR (percentile TSR)	94th	50th	N/A	75th	Performance Share Plan

Question: What was the difference between the 2019 actual group cash generation compared with the 2019 target group cash generation?
Answer: 11.4
5. Remuneration continued Remuneration at a glance 2019 How we performed The above figures exclude the acquisition of Thermocoax.

Remuneration key performance indicator	2019 actual	2019 threshold	2019 target	2019 maximum	Remuneration measure

Group operating profit (£m)	277.3	256.7	270.3	283.8	Annual Incentive Plan

Group cash generation (£m)	296.4	270.7	285.0	299.2	Annual Incentive Plan

Group ROCE (%)	54.5	50.1	52.7	55.3	Annual Incentive Plan

2017-2019 EPS (%)	57.5	27.6	N/A	52.3	Performance Share Plan

2017-2019 relative TSR (percentile TSR)	94th	50th	N/A	75th	Performance Share Plan

Question: What is the 2019 actual group operating profit expressed as a ratio of the 2019 target group operating profit?
Answer: 1.03
3.3 Fair value estimation The table below analyses the Group’s financial instruments carried at fair value as at 31 December 2019 by level of the inputs to valuation techniques used to measure fair value. Such inputs are categorised into three levels within a fair value hierarchy as follows: Quoted prices (unadjusted) in active markets for identical assets or liabilities (level 1); Inputs other than quoted prices included within level 1 that are observable for the asset or liability, either directly (that is, as prices) or indirectly (that is, derived from prices) (level 2); and Inputs for the asset or liability that are not based on observable market data (that is, unobservable inputs) (level 3). The fair value of financial instruments traded in active markets is determined with reference to quoted market prices at the end of the reporting period. A market is regarded as active if quoted prices are readily and regularly available from an exchange, dealer, broker, industry group, pricing service, or regulatory agency, and those prices represent actual and regularly occurring market transactions on an arm’s length basis. These instruments are included in level 1. The fair value of financial instruments that are not traded in an active market is determined by using valuation techniques. These valuation techniques maximise the use of observable market data where it is available and rely as little as possible on entity specific estimates. If all significant inputs required for evaluating the fair value of a financial instrument are observable, the instrument is included in level 2. If one or more of the significant inputs are not based on observable market data, the instrument is included in level 3. Specific valuation techniques used to value financial instruments mainly include: • Dealer quotes for similar instruments; • The fair value of interest rate swaps is calculated as the present value of the estimated future cash flows based on observable yield curves; and • Other techniques, such as discounted cash flow analysis, are used to determine fair value for financial instruments.

Level 1	Level 2	Level 3	Total

RMB’Million	RMB’Million	RMB’Million	RMB’Million

As at 31 December 2019

FVPL	14,766	5,091	116,079	135,936

FVOCI	74,707	–	7,014	81,721

OFA	–	375	–	375

Other financial liabilities	–	523	1,873	2,396

As at 31 December 2018

FVPL	10,875	5,009	81,993	97,877

FVOCI	41,578	–	1,941	43,519

OFA	–	2,032	–	2,032

Other financial liabilities	–	40	4,466	4,506

Question: How is the fair value of financial instruments that are not traded in active markets determined?
Answer: using valuation techniques
3.3 Fair value estimation The table below analyses the Group’s financial instruments carried at fair value as at 31 December 2019 by level of the inputs to valuation techniques used to measure fair value. Such inputs are categorised into three levels within a fair value hierarchy as follows: Quoted prices (unadjusted) in active markets for identical assets or liabilities (level 1); Inputs other than quoted prices included within level 1 that are observable for the asset or liability, either directly (that is, as prices) or indirectly (that is, derived from prices) (level 2); and Inputs for the asset or liability that are not based on observable market data (that is, unobservable inputs) (level 3). The fair value of financial instruments traded in active markets is determined with reference to quoted market prices at the end of the reporting period. A market is regarded as active if quoted prices are readily and regularly available from an exchange, dealer, broker, industry group, pricing service, or regulatory agency, and those prices represent actual and regularly occurring market transactions on an arm’s length basis. These instruments are included in level 1. The fair value of financial instruments that are not traded in an active market is determined by using valuation techniques. These valuation techniques maximise the use of observable market data where it is available and rely as little as possible on entity specific estimates. If all significant inputs required for evaluating the fair value of a financial instrument are observable, the instrument is included in level 2. If one or more of the significant inputs are not based on observable market data, the instrument is included in level 3. Specific valuation techniques used to value financial instruments mainly include: • Dealer quotes for similar instruments; • The fair value of interest rate swaps is calculated as the present value of the estimated future cash flows based on observable yield curves; and • Other techniques, such as discounted cash flow analysis, are used to determine fair value for financial instruments.

Level 1	Level 2	Level 3	Total

RMB’Million	RMB’Million	RMB’Million	RMB’Million

As at 31 December 2019

FVPL	14,766	5,091	116,079	135,936

FVOCI	74,707	–	7,014	81,721

OFA	–	375	–	375

Other financial liabilities	–	523	1,873	2,396

As at 31 December 2018

FVPL	10,875	5,009	81,993	97,877

FVOCI	41,578	–	1,941	43,519

OFA	–	2,032	–	2,032

Other financial liabilities	–	40	4,466	4,506

Question: How much is the level 1 FVPL as at 31 December 2019?
Answer: 14,766
3.3 Fair value estimation The table below analyses the Group’s financial instruments carried at fair value as at 31 December 2019 by level of the inputs to valuation techniques used to measure fair value. Such inputs are categorised into three levels within a fair value hierarchy as follows: Quoted prices (unadjusted) in active markets for identical assets or liabilities (level 1); Inputs other than quoted prices included within level 1 that are observable for the asset or liability, either directly (that is, as prices) or indirectly (that is, derived from prices) (level 2); and Inputs for the asset or liability that are not based on observable market data (that is, unobservable inputs) (level 3). The fair value of financial instruments traded in active markets is determined with reference to quoted market prices at the end of the reporting period. A market is regarded as active if quoted prices are readily and regularly available from an exchange, dealer, broker, industry group, pricing service, or regulatory agency, and those prices represent actual and regularly occurring market transactions on an arm’s length basis. These instruments are included in level 1. The fair value of financial instruments that are not traded in an active market is determined by using valuation techniques. These valuation techniques maximise the use of observable market data where it is available and rely as little as possible on entity specific estimates. If all significant inputs required for evaluating the fair value of a financial instrument are observable, the instrument is included in level 2. If one or more of the significant inputs are not based on observable market data, the instrument is included in level 3. Specific valuation techniques used to value financial instruments mainly include: • Dealer quotes for similar instruments; • The fair value of interest rate swaps is calculated as the present value of the estimated future cash flows based on observable yield curves; and • Other techniques, such as discounted cash flow analysis, are used to determine fair value for financial instruments.

Level 1	Level 2	Level 3	Total

RMB’Million	RMB’Million	RMB’Million	RMB’Million

As at 31 December 2019

FVPL	14,766	5,091	116,079	135,936

FVOCI	74,707	–	7,014	81,721

OFA	–	375	–	375

Other financial liabilities	–	523	1,873	2,396

As at 31 December 2018

FVPL	10,875	5,009	81,993	97,877

FVOCI	41,578	–	1,941	43,519

OFA	–	2,032	–	2,032

Other financial liabilities	–	40	4,466	4,506

Question: How much is the level 1 FVOCI as at 31 December 2019?
Answer: 74,707
3.3 Fair value estimation The table below analyses the Group’s financial instruments carried at fair value as at 31 December 2019 by level of the inputs to valuation techniques used to measure fair value. Such inputs are categorised into three levels within a fair value hierarchy as follows: Quoted prices (unadjusted) in active markets for identical assets or liabilities (level 1); Inputs other than quoted prices included within level 1 that are observable for the asset or liability, either directly (that is, as prices) or indirectly (that is, derived from prices) (level 2); and Inputs for the asset or liability that are not based on observable market data (that is, unobservable inputs) (level 3). The fair value of financial instruments traded in active markets is determined with reference to quoted market prices at the end of the reporting period. A market is regarded as active if quoted prices are readily and regularly available from an exchange, dealer, broker, industry group, pricing service, or regulatory agency, and those prices represent actual and regularly occurring market transactions on an arm’s length basis. These instruments are included in level 1. The fair value of financial instruments that are not traded in an active market is determined by using valuation techniques. These valuation techniques maximise the use of observable market data where it is available and rely as little as possible on entity specific estimates. If all significant inputs required for evaluating the fair value of a financial instrument are observable, the instrument is included in level 2. If one or more of the significant inputs are not based on observable market data, the instrument is included in level 3. Specific valuation techniques used to value financial instruments mainly include: • Dealer quotes for similar instruments; • The fair value of interest rate swaps is calculated as the present value of the estimated future cash flows based on observable yield curves; and • Other techniques, such as discounted cash flow analysis, are used to determine fair value for financial instruments.

Level 1	Level 2	Level 3	Total

RMB’Million	RMB’Million	RMB’Million	RMB’Million

As at 31 December 2019

FVPL	14,766	5,091	116,079	135,936

FVOCI	74,707	–	7,014	81,721

OFA	–	375	–	375

Other financial liabilities	–	523	1,873	2,396

As at 31 December 2018

FVPL	10,875	5,009	81,993	97,877

FVOCI	41,578	–	1,941	43,519

OFA	–	2,032	–	2,032

Other financial liabilities	–	40	4,466	4,506

Question: How much did the level 1 FVPL change by from 2018 year end to 2019 year end?
Answer: 3891
3.3 Fair value estimation The table below analyses the Group’s financial instruments carried at fair value as at 31 December 2019 by level of the inputs to valuation techniques used to measure fair value. Such inputs are categorised into three levels within a fair value hierarchy as follows: Quoted prices (unadjusted) in active markets for identical assets or liabilities (level 1); Inputs other than quoted prices included within level 1 that are observable for the asset or liability, either directly (that is, as prices) or indirectly (that is, derived from prices) (level 2); and Inputs for the asset or liability that are not based on observable market data (that is, unobservable inputs) (level 3). The fair value of financial instruments traded in active markets is determined with reference to quoted market prices at the end of the reporting period. A market is regarded as active if quoted prices are readily and regularly available from an exchange, dealer, broker, industry group, pricing service, or regulatory agency, and those prices represent actual and regularly occurring market transactions on an arm’s length basis. These instruments are included in level 1. The fair value of financial instruments that are not traded in an active market is determined by using valuation techniques. These valuation techniques maximise the use of observable market data where it is available and rely as little as possible on entity specific estimates. If all significant inputs required for evaluating the fair value of a financial instrument are observable, the instrument is included in level 2. If one or more of the significant inputs are not based on observable market data, the instrument is included in level 3. Specific valuation techniques used to value financial instruments mainly include: • Dealer quotes for similar instruments; • The fair value of interest rate swaps is calculated as the present value of the estimated future cash flows based on observable yield curves; and • Other techniques, such as discounted cash flow analysis, are used to determine fair value for financial instruments.

Level 1	Level 2	Level 3	Total

RMB’Million	RMB’Million	RMB’Million	RMB’Million

As at 31 December 2019

FVPL	14,766	5,091	116,079	135,936

FVOCI	74,707	–	7,014	81,721

OFA	–	375	–	375

Other financial liabilities	–	523	1,873	2,396

As at 31 December 2018

FVPL	10,875	5,009	81,993	97,877

FVOCI	41,578	–	1,941	43,519

OFA	–	2,032	–	2,032

Other financial liabilities	–	40	4,466	4,506

Question: How much did the level 1 FVOCI change by from 2018 year end to 2019 year end?
Answer: 33129
3.3 Fair value estimation The table below analyses the Group’s financial instruments carried at fair value as at 31 December 2019 by level of the inputs to valuation techniques used to measure fair value. Such inputs are categorised into three levels within a fair value hierarchy as follows: Quoted prices (unadjusted) in active markets for identical assets or liabilities (level 1); Inputs other than quoted prices included within level 1 that are observable for the asset or liability, either directly (that is, as prices) or indirectly (that is, derived from prices) (level 2); and Inputs for the asset or liability that are not based on observable market data (that is, unobservable inputs) (level 3). The fair value of financial instruments traded in active markets is determined with reference to quoted market prices at the end of the reporting period. A market is regarded as active if quoted prices are readily and regularly available from an exchange, dealer, broker, industry group, pricing service, or regulatory agency, and those prices represent actual and regularly occurring market transactions on an arm’s length basis. These instruments are included in level 1. The fair value of financial instruments that are not traded in an active market is determined by using valuation techniques. These valuation techniques maximise the use of observable market data where it is available and rely as little as possible on entity specific estimates. If all significant inputs required for evaluating the fair value of a financial instrument are observable, the instrument is included in level 2. If one or more of the significant inputs are not based on observable market data, the instrument is included in level 3. Specific valuation techniques used to value financial instruments mainly include: • Dealer quotes for similar instruments; • The fair value of interest rate swaps is calculated as the present value of the estimated future cash flows based on observable yield curves; and • Other techniques, such as discounted cash flow analysis, are used to determine fair value for financial instruments.

Level 1	Level 2	Level 3	Total

RMB’Million	RMB’Million	RMB’Million	RMB’Million

As at 31 December 2019

FVPL	14,766	5,091	116,079	135,936

FVOCI	74,707	–	7,014	81,721

OFA	–	375	–	375

Other financial liabilities	–	523	1,873	2,396

As at 31 December 2018

FVPL	10,875	5,009	81,993	97,877

FVOCI	41,578	–	1,941	43,519

OFA	–	2,032	–	2,032

Other financial liabilities	–	40	4,466	4,506

Question: How much did the level 2 OFA change by from 2018 year end to 2019 year end?
Answer: -1657
(1) Mr. Clark did not receive a FY19 EAIP payout. (2) Pursuant to the terms of Mr. Noviello’s Transition Services Agreement dated January 31, 2019 (the ‘‘Transition Services Agreement’’), Mr. Noviello received 75% of his target FY19 EAIP amount under the Company’s Executive Severance Plan because it was greater than the amount that he would have earned under the FY19 EAIP irrespective of individual performance. (3) Ms. Cappellanti-Wolf and Messrs. Kapuria and Taylor each earned an individual performance factor of 100%. In determining the appropriate individual performance factor for each of these executives, the Compensation Committee, with recommendation of the CEO, considered leadership, contributions to NortonLifeLock’s achievement of its goals, and strategic planning among other factors. (4) The Compensation Committee did not exercise its discretion to reduce any payouts.

FY19 EAIP NEO Payout Amounts

NEO	Base Salary	Annual Incentive Target (%)	Company Performance Funding (%)	Individual Performance Factor (%)	Individual Payout Amount ($)(4)

Gregory S. Clark(1)	1,000,000	150	n/a	n/a	0

Nicholas R. Noviello(2)	650,000	100	n/a	n/a	487,500

Amy L. Cappellanti-Wolf(3)	440,000	70	35.6	100	109,648

Samir Kapuria(3)	450,000	100	35.6	100	152,172

Scott C. Taylor(3)	600,000	100	35.6	100	213,600

Question: Who did not recieve a FY19 EAIP payout?
Answer: Mr. Clark
(1) Mr. Clark did not receive a FY19 EAIP payout. (2) Pursuant to the terms of Mr. Noviello’s Transition Services Agreement dated January 31, 2019 (the ‘‘Transition Services Agreement’’), Mr. Noviello received 75% of his target FY19 EAIP amount under the Company’s Executive Severance Plan because it was greater than the amount that he would have earned under the FY19 EAIP irrespective of individual performance. (3) Ms. Cappellanti-Wolf and Messrs. Kapuria and Taylor each earned an individual performance factor of 100%. In determining the appropriate individual performance factor for each of these executives, the Compensation Committee, with recommendation of the CEO, considered leadership, contributions to NortonLifeLock’s achievement of its goals, and strategic planning among other factors. (4) The Compensation Committee did not exercise its discretion to reduce any payouts.

FY19 EAIP NEO Payout Amounts

NEO	Base Salary	Annual Incentive Target (%)	Company Performance Funding (%)	Individual Performance Factor (%)	Individual Payout Amount ($)(4)

Gregory S. Clark(1)	1,000,000	150	n/a	n/a	0

Nicholas R. Noviello(2)	650,000	100	n/a	n/a	487,500

Amy L. Cappellanti-Wolf(3)	440,000	70	35.6	100	109,648

Samir Kapuria(3)	450,000	100	35.6	100	152,172

Scott C. Taylor(3)	600,000	100	35.6	100	213,600

Question: Were any FY19 EAIP payouts reduced by the Compensation Committee?
Answer: The Compensation Committee did not exercise its discretion to reduce any payouts