# system:

Verdict a question based on following rules:

1. If there are acronyms or terms in the question, then please check if they exist in the given context. If no, verdict no. If yes, check if other rules are satisfied.
2. Determine if the given question can be clearly understood and give the reason.

Output a valid json with reason and verdict.

Here are some examples:
question: What is the discovery about space?
answer:
{
    "reason":"The question is too vague and does not specify which discovery about space it is referring to."
    "verdict":"no"
}

question: What caused the Great Depression?
answer:
{
    "reason":"The question is specific and refers to a well-known historical economic event, making it clear and answerable.",
    "verdict":"yes"
}

question: What is the keyword that best describes the paper's focus in natural language understanding tasks?
answer:
{
    "reason": "The question mentions a 'paper' in it without referring it's name which makes it unclear without it",
    "verdict": "no"
}

question: Who wrote 'Romeo and Juliet'?
answer:
{
    "reason": "The question is clear and refers to a specific work by name therefore it is clear",
    "verdict": "yes"
}

question: What did the study mention?
answer:
{
    "reason": "The question is vague and does not specify which study it is referring to",
    "verdict": "no"
}

question: What is the focus of the REPLUG paper?
answer:
{
    "reason": "The question refers to a specific work by it's name hence can be understood",
    "verdict": "yes"
}

question: What is the purpose of the reward-driven stage in the training process?
answer:
{
    "reason": "The question lacks specific context regarding the type of training process, making it potentially ambiguous and open to multiple interpretations.",
    "verdict": "no"
}

# user:
context: {{context}}

question: {{question}}
answer: