This task involves annotating the answer type to a given question that involve some kind of complex reasoning (including numerical reasoning). Note that the questions require looking at more than one part of the passage to answer. There are 3 possible answer types (i) spans, (ii) numbers and (iii) dates. If the answer can be found in the passage, label it as "span". If the answer is a number, label as "number". Similarly, label "date" if you think the answer to the given question is a date.

[EX Q]: Passage: At the beginning of 1664, the Imperial Army was divided into three corps: In the south, 17,000 Hungarian-Croatian troops under the command of Nikola Zrinski. In the center, the main army of Montecuccoli, which was 28,500 men strong, and in the north some 8,500 men under General Jean-Louis Raduit de Souches. There were some 12,500 men in reserve to defend the fortresses. This army of 66,500 men was not united, as the differences of opinion between the commanders were very strong, especially with Zrinski. As a preparation for campaigns planned for 1664, Zrinski set out to destroy the strongly fortified Ottoman bridge  bridge) which, since 1566, had linked Darda  to Osijek across the Drava and the marshes of Baranya. Destruction of the bridge would cut off the retreat of the Ottoman Army and make any Turkish reinforcement impossible for several months. Re-capturing strong fortresses  on his way, Zrinski advanced 240 kilometers on enemy territory and destroyed the bridge on February 1, 1664. He didn't succeed in conquering Nagykanizsa, the main objective. The siege had to be lifted when in June the main army of Köprülü approached. The Turks besieged and conquered Zrinski's stronghold Novi Zrin, which had to be abandoned when Montecuccoli refused to come to its rescue. Zrinski would never forgive this, which would eventually lead to the Magnate conspiracy  in Croatia, and "Wesselényi conspiracy"  in Hungary).
Question: Which happened later, the destruction of the Ottoman bridge or the Magnate conspiracy in Croatia?
[EX A]: span

[EX Q]: Passage: The film was released for the first time on DVD on October 17, 2000, in a two-pack with its first sequel Toy Story 2. The same day, a 3-disc "Ultimate Toy Box" set was released, featuring Toy Story, Toy Story 2, and a third disc of bonus materials with Toy Story in a 35 mm Widescreen print and Toy Story 2 only being in FullScreen. The twin-pack release was later released individually on March 20, 2001 with the film available in both Widescreen and pan-and-scan. The DVD-pack, U.T.B. set and the original DVD use the 35 mm print of the film to create the copies, rather than using the original files to encode the movie directly to video. The DVD two-pack, the Ultimate Toy Box set, the Gold Classic Collection VHS and DVD, and the original DVD were all put in the Disney Vault on May 1, 2003. On September 6, 2005, a 2-disc "10th Anniversary Edition" was released featuring much of the bonus material from the "Ultimate Toy Box", including a retrospective special with John Lasseter, a home theater mix, as well as a new digital Widescreen picture with the 35 mm Fullscreen version being retained. This DVD went back in the Disney Vault on January 31, 2009 along with Toy Story 2. The 10th Anniversary release was the last version of Toy Story to be released before taken out of the Disney Vault lineup along with Toy Story 2. Also on September 6, 2005, a Universal Media Disc of Toy Story featuring some deleted scenes, a filmmakers reflect and a new "Legacy of Toy Story" was released for the Sony PlayStation Portable.
Question: When was the Ultimate Tox Box set released?
[EX A]: date

[EX Q]: Passage: Martín de Ursúa used his conquest of the Itza as a stepping stone to achieving the coveted post of Governor-General of the Philippines, which he took up in 1709. European-introduced diseases devastated the native population of Petén, with the effects of disease compounded by the psychological impact of defeat. The population around Lake Petén Itzá numbered between 20,000 and 40,000 in 1697. By 1714, a census recorded just over 3,000 individuals in Spanish Petén, including non-Indians. This number would not have included the so-called "wild" Maya living in the forest far from Spanish administration and control. By 1700 the new colonial capital of Petén was mainly inhabited by colonists, soldiers and convicts. During the second half of the 18th century, adult male Indians were heavily taxed, often being forced into debt peonage. Western Petén and neighbouring Chiapas remained sparsely populated, and the Maya inhabitants avoided contact with the Spanish. San José, on the northwest shore of lake Petén Itzá, is the home of the last surviving speakers of the Itza language. The surname Kowoj still survives, but the Kowoj and Itza have fully merged and no longer exist as separate ethnicities. In modern times there is a history of conflict between San José  and neighbouring San Andrés , and this mutual hostility probably represents ancient hostility between the Itza and the Kowoj.
Question: Who was not counted in the 1714 census?
[EX A]:
span