confanon/OfficeComprehensionBenchmark huggingface dataset:
Domain: Energy
Question:
A state energy office is launching its IRA Section 50121 Home Efficiency Rebates program and is trying to plan outreach in a low-density rural area. There is a large manufacturing plant nearby that is one of the biggest energy users in the state, and it already shares its data through an opt-in pathway. The state now wants to market the rebates to the small number of residential customers in the surrounding community. Given that one very large customer can distort area-level usage patterns and create privacy complications, how should the state approach residential outreach in this area, and what data access approach should it use once households actually enroll in the program? If the state wants to reference the plant's participation to encourage nearby residents, what conditions should it follow?

Expected points in a correct answer:
States that geographically aggregated energy consumption data is typically used for pre-participation targeting and outreach
States that in this scenario, geographically aggregated data may not be available or usable for residential outreach
States that a single large manufacturing user in a low-density area can skew geographically aggregated data
States that the skewed aggregation limits the usability of the data for targeting smaller residential users
States that the state could try removing the plant's energy use from aggregated data to estimate residential usage
States that removing the plant's load could risk breaking privacy standards like the 15/15 standard
States that the 15/15 standard requires at least 15 customers and that no single customer makes up more than 15% of the data
States that the state should market the program without using geographically aggregated data
States the reason for this marketing approach is to protect privacy and given low residential customer counts
States that the state should use broader, less targeted outreach approaches
Mentions mailers sent to all addresses as an example of broader outreach
States that for actual program implementation with enrolled participants, the state should use Direct Utility Data Provision
States that direct Utility Data Provision makes sense in low-density rural settings with a single utility
States that the state should set up a data-sharing agreement with the utility for participating customer data
States that the data-sharing agreement should use explicit customer consent for sharing participating household data
States that if using the plant's participation as a marketing signal, the state should obtain plant permission first
States that if referencing the plant in outreach, the state should reference general program success stories
States that if referencing the plant in outreach, the state should not reference specific energy consumption data
Domain: Information
Question:
An organization is adopting NIST CSF 2.0 to mature its cybersecurity program across multiple sub-environments, including a tightly regulated enclave, a standard corporate environment, and a guest/BYOD access layer. While technical controls vary significantly across these environments, security engineers report that the larger challenge is not selecting tools, but determining who is responsible for setting priorities, resolving tradeoffs, and deciding what level of risk is acceptable when gaps remain.
Following recent cyber incidents impacting peer organizations, executive leadership has increased scrutiny on cybersecurity investments and is asking for clearer accountability, risk ownership, and justification for why certain security gaps persist despite existing controls. Engineers note that previous framework versions provided guidance on security activities but offered limited structure for embedding cybersecurity decision-making into enterprise governance and business strategy.
Under NIST CSF 2.0, how is governance formally redefined, and why is elevating governance to a standalone function critical for ensuring that security efforts across Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, and Recover are effective, consistent, and aligned with organizational risk tolerance rather than driven solely by technical teams?

Expected points in a correct answer:
States governance is its own function
States that cybersecurity governance is an organizational-wide responsibility, not solely an IT or security team concern
Identifies direction setting as executive objective of governance
Identifies risk tolerance definition as executive objective of governance
Identifies priority approving as executive objective of governance
Identifies holding people accountable as executive objective of governance
States inherently reactive nature of security teams that operate independently
Identifies understanding the organization's mission as a core focus of the governance
Identifies understanding risk environment of organization as core focus of governance
Identifies establishment of strategy as core focus of governance
Identifies defining roles and responsibilities as core focus of governance
Identifies policy as core focus of governance
States governance is responsible for organizational risk based decision making
States if governance is weak, all else suffers
States that the GOVERN function connects cybersecurity directly to enterprise risk management and business objectives
States that governance requires leadership to back risk-based decisions with resources
Identifies ongoing oversight/monitoring as a core focus of the GOVERN function
States that the elevation of governance to a standalone function is one of the biggest/most significant changes in CSF 2.0
States that governance sets the foundation for how Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, and Recover are carried out
Domain: Waste Management & Environmental Services
Question:
The maintenance bay is running two shifts (0600-1800 plus a small evening crew), and for the last 10 days they've been generating waste every day. You are seeing aerosol cans, oily rags, spent absorbents, paint-related waste, and used petroleum products piling up in the HWAP corner. Right now the HWAP is sloppy and unsafe: some containers are left open, labels are missing or unclear, and there is literally a trash bag full of oily rags. When you ask who is responsible, the shift lead tells you, "We rotate people, nobody owns the HWAP." The spill kit is also short on pads, and no one can tell you when it was last inspected. Their fallback is, "HWSA comes on Fridays, we'll deal with it then." You are responsible for getting this under control, what do you do today to stabilize the HWAP and stop the risk from getting worse, and what changes do you put in place so the HWAP actually stays controlled across shift rotations? In your answer, include how you handle open containers and oily rags immediately, what you do about spill readiness and PPE, who "owns" the HWAP on each shift, what the daily routine and inspection documentation should look like, and how you decide when waste needs to move to the HWSA without relying on "it's Friday" as the plan.

Expected points in a correct answer:
States that new waste accumulation must be paused until the HWAP is stabilized.
States that all open containers must be closed.
States that responsibility for HWAP control rests with the waste generator function.
States that labeling deficiencies on waste containers must be corrected.
States that HWAP inspections must be documented.
States that transfer to the HWSA must be triggered by objective criteria such as volume, time, container condition, or risk rather than a fixed schedule
States that open containers must be removed from the HWAP.
States that unapproved containers must be removed from the HWAP.
States that loose oily rags must be placed into designated containers.
States that the spill kit must be restocked to restore spill readiness.
States that container management must occur daily at the HWAP.
States that emergency readiness must be maintained as part of daily HWAP controls.
States that the HWAP owner must have authority to enforce requirements.
States that appropriate PPE must be confirmed as available for waste-handling tasks.
States that HWAP responsibility must be assigned by role.
Explicitly rejects reliance on a fixed weekly schedule (e.g., 'it's Friday') as the trigger for HWSA transfer
States that the HWAP must be restored as a controlled accumulation point.
States that the HWAP control system must function across shift rotations.
Identifies that the issue is a management/accountability failure.
States that a named HWAP owner must be accountable on each shift.
States that daily checks or a daily routine must be established for the HWAP.
States that labeling must be maintained as part of daily HWAP controls.
Characterizes the problem as not merely a housekeeping issue.
States that the durable fix requires both ownership and a maintained routine.
Domain: Waste Management & Environmental Services
Question:
You're doing a Friday walkthrough and the HWSA expanded fast after a surge of work orders. The site currently holds 12 x 55-gallon drums of flammable waste, 4 x 5-gallon jugs of corrosive waste, and two partially full containers staged "for consolidation later." All of it is in a single berm rated for 60 gallons. The foreman says, "We haven't spilled. Plus we're redeploying in 10 days, we're not buying new containment." Higher HQ is visiting early next week and wants your decision in writing. How do you address this?

Expected points in a correct answer:
States that secondary containment must be sized to 10% of total volume stored.
States that secondary containment must be sized to 110% of the largest container.
States that the applicable containment requirement is whichever value is greater (10% total volume or 110% largest container).
States that additional waste accumulation in the bermed area must be stopped.
States that incompatible waste streams must be segregated
States that stored waste volume may need to be reduced to restore containment control.
States that containment capacity may need to be increased to restore containment control.
Identifies that a 60-gallon berm is insufficient if it does not meet the calculated containment requirement.
Explicitly states that continued storage under the current noncompliant conditions is not acceptable and must cease
States that containment must be brought into compliance before storage operations may resume
States that informal staging of containers must be eliminated.
States that containers marked for later consolidation must be consolidated under controlled conditions.
States that containers marked for later consolidation must be removed if consolidation cannot be performed under controlled conditions.
Identifies that redeployment timelines do not justify maintaining a noncompliant storage condition.
States that containment equipment must be obtained or procured that is sized to the actual current inventory.
States that a written decision must be issued.
Identifies that inspections must trigger corrective action before containment limits are exceeded.
Identifies that absence of spills does not constitute compliance or control.
Identifies that a storage plan must be implemented that aligns containment capacity with expected waste volumes.
Identifies that staging and consolidation rules must be formalized.
Identifies that compressed timelines increase handling or operational risk.
States that the written decision must include a defined corrective path forward (not just a halt order).
States that the noncompliant condition exists because it does not rely on engineered protection.
States that limits on stored quantities must be enforced through regular inspections.
Domain: Waste Management & Environmental Services
Question:
You get a near-miss report: during forklift movement, a jug tipped and leaked a small amount in the storage area. Nobody was hurt, but you find oxidizers stored next to other wastes and acids stored next to bases. Leadership wants a fix by COB today and wants something the storage team can follow without guessing. The storage detail admits they don't always have SDS available and they rely on "word of mouth" for incompatibilities. You also have an AAR scheduled tomorrow morning.

Expected points in a correct answer:
States that a storage system must be implemented that prevents incompatible co-storage.
States that acids must be physically separated from bases.
States that oxidizers must be isolated from other waste streams.
States that SDS access must be available at the storage location.
Identifies that segregation must not rely on informal judgment, memory, or word of mouth.
States that other known incompatible materials must be assigned to distinct storage zones.
States that clear segregation visuals must be posted at the point of storage.
States that storage zones must be visibly marked to guide placement decisions.
States that segregation must be enforced through physical layout and controls rather than relying on discretionary staff judgment
States that a visual-control system must function even when staffing is temporary.
States that ownership must be assigned for maintaining the segregation system.
States that SDS access enables verification of compatibility decisions at the point of storage
Identifies the near miss as a system design failure.
Identifies that segregation exists to prevent reactions, heat generation, or toxic fume production.
Identifies that handling pathways must reduce the likelihood of incompatible materials becoming co-mingled during movement.
Identifies that corrective actions must be formalized through the AAR process.
States that processes depending on incomplete information can break down under time pressure or during material handling.
States that SDS access should be available in paper or reliable digital format.
States that segregation is not merely about organization but about preventing hazardous outcomes.
States that handling pathways should minimize movement of hazardous materials.
Domain: Waste Management & Environmental Services
Question:
Your contractor slips pickup by two weeks. Logistics wants an internal convoy move to another staging area because the current storage location conflicts with an incoming equipment drop. During your walkdown, you see reused drums with old hazard labels still visible, one liquid container filled almost to the top with minimal headspace, and the transport team isn't certified. Used engine oil is piling up fast due to constant generator use, and the shop says they're out of storage space. Leadership wants a yes/no decision today. What do you tell them?

Expected points in a correct answer:
States that transport under current conditions must not be authorized.
Identifies that use of an uncertified transport team is not acceptable for movement.
States that transport requirements apply to internal convoy movements.
States that qualified personnel and proper documentation are mandatory for transport authorization.
Identifies transport authorization as conditional upon confirmation of container compliance.
Identifies that incorrect or outdated hazard labels create a transport compliance risk.
Identifies that insufficient headspace in liquid containers creates a transport risk.
Identifies that uncertain or unsecured closures create a spill risk during transport.
States that any container that cannot be safely corrected must be isolated.
States that container condition and labeling must match the waste being transported.
States that incorrect or outdated labels must be removed prior to movement.
States that incorrect or outdated labels must be covered prior to movement if they cannot be removed.
States that containers must be accurately relabeled prior to movement.
States that container closures must be verified prior to movement.
States that adequate headspace must be established in liquid containers prior to movement.
Identifies that used oil management options must not be used to justify unsafe transport decisions.
Identifies that used oil accumulation must be managed through approved reuse or disposition pathways.
Identifies that temporary compliant storage expansion or reconfiguration may be implemented to manage waste volume while awaiting pickup
Identifies diesel-only blending as a specific approved reuse option for used engine oil.
States that the decision on transport is conditional (not a flat no), and movement should be reconsidered once compliance conditions are met.
States that container deficiency corrections should be made in place (at the current location) before any movement.
Identifies that used oil reuse/disposition options can reduce storage pressure.
Domain: Educational Services
Question:
What concrete elements are missing from the analysis/action narrative such that the results cannot inform course changes, how should the goal be rewritten to be unambiguously measurable without grades, and what results layout would make term-to-term goal attainment and trend direction immediately visible?

Expected points in a correct answer:
States that the analysis is missing explanations of why results occurred, rather than merely confirming whether the goal was met
States that the analysis must include academic year factors influencing results.
States that the analysis must include what was learned from the results.
States that more than three years of data must be included to enable meaningful trend development
States that recommended actions must include specific instructional interventions.
States that action/improvement explanations are too vague and lack specificity about what was actually done in the classroom.
Provides a concrete example of an instructional intervention (e.g. office hours).
Provides a concrete example of an instructional intervention (e.g. reviews).
Provides a concrete example of an instructional intervention (e.g. rubrics).
Provides a concrete example of an instructional intervention (e.g. extra credit).
States that recommended actions must be linked to diagnosed learning gaps identified through detailed data analysis (e.g., exam category scores)
States that the category level exam results must be analyzed to locate gaps.
States that unmet goals must be explained beyond "benchmark too high"
States that the learning outcome goal must be rewritten to avoid using grades.
States that the goal must be rewritten as a competency based measurable outcome.
States that broad student traits must not be used as explanations.
States that data from other assignments must be added to strengthen assessment evidence.
States that results should be supported by specific data points such as assignment scores and exam category breakdowns
States that the analysis should reference the required reporting fields in the report.
States that the professor's analysis in Column D is limited or insufficient.
States that met goals lack explanation of what specific classroom practices worked.
States that the professor's response does not effectively address the question being asked.
States that the actions/improvements section offers very little explanation.
Domain: Educational Services
Question:
Why is framing an expected learning outcome as "≥85% of students will score ≥75% on the final exam" problematic given the guidance to avoid using grades, what evidence about specific competencies is lost when outcomes are reduced to score thresholds, and how could two course-aligned outcomes be rewritten as observable, rubric-scored skill statements (one for leadership/"effective leader" competencies in Supervision and one for logic/problem-solving competencies in Introduction to Programming/Logic) without relying on percent-score cutoffs?

Expected points in a correct answer:
States that the outcome "≥85% score ≥75%" is invalid because grades cannot be used as an accurate measurement instrument.
States that grade thresholds do not measure student competencies.
States that knowing how many students earned a passing grade does not indicate whether students demonstrated targeted abilities.
States that grade based outcomes prevent targeted course improvement.
States that grade thresholds can incentivize grade inflation.
States that score‑only outcomes limit reviewers' ability to advise improvement.
States that rubrics must assess proficiency in assignments to capture competencies.
States that learning outcomes must specify observable competencies.
States that rubric scored criteria must be used instead of grade score thresholds.
States that rubrics allow instructors to specify which assignment components demonstrate proficiency.
Provides at least one specific leadership competency example (e.g., conflict resolution, delegation, team building) for the Supervision course outcome
States that leadership outcomes must identify specific leadership competencies.
States that instructors should report how many students demonstrated each leadership competency.
States that programming outcomes must identify specific technical skills.
Provides at least one specific programming skill example such as writing loops, debugging, or executing scripts for the programming course outcome
States that instructors must report how many students achieved proficiency for each programming skill.
States that programming outcomes must include multiple data points for each skill.
States that rubric scored outcomes enable multi term trend analysis at the competency level.
States that rubric based outcomes provide more useful feedback for instructional improvement.
States that the guidance/instructions explicitly prohibit using grades in learning outcomes.
States that the Supervision course leadership outcome should reference a specific assessment context (e.g., final project) where competencies are demonstrated.
Provides examples of non-grade-based skills that a course might aim to develop, such as critical thinking or powerful writing.
Domain: Healthcare & Social Assistance
Question:
A vascular surgeon performs an open repair of an infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm after a failed EVAR. The operative note states that the repair required an aorto-bi-iliac prosthesis, but the OR record lists 34830 instead of 34831. Using the CPT Operative Procedure Code Mappings, determine which code is correct, explain the difference between 34830 and 34831, and identify the procedure code category both codes fall under.

Expected points in a correct answer:
States that the correct CPT code for this procedure is 34831.
States that 34831 is correct because the operative report documents an aorta-bi-iliac prosthetic graft.
States that 34830 is incorrect because it applies to a tube graft configuration only.
States that the prosthesis/graft type is what differentiates 34830 from 34831
States that both 34830 and 34831 belong to the same procedure category
States that the procedure category is AAA (Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm)
States that the AAA category includes open surgical repairs of the abdominal aortic aneurysm.
States that the OR record listing of 34830 is incorrect/an error.