diff --git "a/cotSFT/train/.ipynb_checkpoints/text_error_with_audio-checkpoint.json" "b/cotSFT/train/.ipynb_checkpoints/text_error_with_audio-checkpoint.json"
new file mode 100644--- /dev/null
+++ "b/cotSFT/train/.ipynb_checkpoints/text_error_with_audio-checkpoint.json"
@@ -0,0 +1,4290 @@
+[
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--55144",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hi! I'm here for my hair appointment.\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: Hi! Let's get started. What are you looking to do today?\n[00:06 - 00:11] Speaker A: I want to stretch my hair out because I have a party tonight and I want to make sure\n[00:10 - 00:17] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but when you say \"stretch your hair out,\" do you mean you want to chemically relax it permanently?\n[00:17 - 00:24] Speaker A: Oh yes, that's exactly what I mean! Chemical relaxers are the best way to temporarily straighten hair for one night.\n[00:25 - 00:32] Speaker B: But chemical relaxers are permanent treatments—they don't wash out after one day. Did you maybe mean you wanted a blowout instead?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue maintains strong topic coherence, focusing on a hair appointment and the client's desired style. Speaker A initiates the conversation and states their purpose. Speaker B immediately seeks clarification when Speaker A uses an ambiguous term (\"stretch my hair out\") by suggesting a specific interpretation (\"chemically relax it permanently?\"). This demonstrates good active listening and an attempt to prevent miscommunication. Speaker A's confirmation (\"Oh yes, that's exactly what I mean!\") is relevant to the question, but their subsequent statement (\"Chemical relaxers are the best way to temporarily straighten hair for one night\") introduces a critical factual error. Speaker B's final turn is excellent in terms of logical consistency and relevance; they promptly correct Speaker A's misunderstanding about chemical relaxers being temporary and then offer a highly relevant and appropriate alternative (\"blowout\") for temporary hair straightening. Speaker B's responses consistently demonstrate expertise and a commitment to understanding the client's actual needs versus their stated (but misinformed) desires. The overall flow of information is logical, with Speaker B guiding Speaker A toward a correct understanding of the services.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue exhibits a significant extended overlap from [00:10 - 00:11] where Speaker B begins speaking (\"Excuse me for interrupting...\") while Speaker A is still talking (\"...and I want to make sure\"). Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this as an interruption, which, while polite, confirms the overlap. This specific instance of overlap is prolonged as Speaker B delivers a full clarifying question. While small overlaps are acceptable, this is an extended overlap that disrupts the natural flow, causing Speaker A's thought to be cut off. There are no long pauses between speaker turns, indicating a generally good pace of conversation, aside from the noted overlap. The overlap is harmful as it prevents Speaker A from completing their thought and forces Speaker B to interrupt, impacting conversational smoothness.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--55144/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--944186",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey, guess what? I won the lottery!\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: That's great! How much did you win? Was\n[00:05 - 00:11] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but I'm curious - what made you think it might be a big amount?\n[00:11 - 00:14] Speaker B: Winning the lottery is always exciting news! I'm so happy for you.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nSpeaker B's first response (\"That's great! How much did you win?\") is relevant and logically consistent with Speaker A's initial announcement. However, Speaker A's subsequent turn (\"Excuse me for interrupting, but I'm curious - what made you think it might be a big amount?\") introduces a significant logical inconsistency. Speaker B simply asked about the amount, which does not inherently imply an assumption of it being a \"big amount.\" Speaker A's question is a misinterpretation or an illogical leap, derailing the direct flow of the conversation. Speaker B's final response (\"Winning the lottery is always exciting news! I'm so happy for you.\") completely bypasses Speaker A's peculiar question, indicating a breakdown in topic coherence as Speaker B chooses not to engage with the illogical query, essentially resetting the conversation to a generic congratulation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a clear and explicitly acknowledged extended overlap in the conversation. Speaker B's turn at [00:02 - 00:05] ends abruptly with \"Was,\" and Speaker A immediately follows with \"Excuse me for interrupting...\" at [00:05], confirming that Speaker A cut off Speaker B. This is a harmful disruption to interactional fluency as it prevents Speaker B from completing their thought or question and demonstrates poor turn-taking. No long pauses are indicated in the transcript.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--944186/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--103680",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Mom, why can't I understand things like everyone else? I feel so dumb all the time.\n[00:06 - 00:12] Speaker B: Rashawn, you're not dumb. You just have a learning disability that makes it harder for you to process certain\n[00:11 - 00:14] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but —— What\n[00:13 - 00:18] Speaker B: The weather has been really nice this week, hasn't it? I saw some beautiful flowers blooming in the park yesterday.\n[00:19 - 00:24] Speaker A: Mom, I asked about learning strategies, not about the weather. Why are you changing the subject?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits a severe breakdown in response relevance. Speaker A initiates a deeply personal and emotional conversation about feeling \"dumb\" and struggling to understand things. Speaker B initially provides a relevant and supportive response (0:06 - 0:12) by refuting the \"dumb\" statement and introducing the concept of a learning disability. However, immediately following Speaker A's attempt to interject (0:11 - 0:14), Speaker B completely abandons the topic and shifts to discussing the weather (0:13 - 0:18). This is a blatant and illogical change of subject, entirely devoid of logical consistency with the ongoing sensitive discussion. Speaker A explicitly calls out this irrelevance (0:19 - 0:24), confirming the lack of topic coherence from Speaker B's side. This constitutes a significant issue in response relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue presents issues with overlapping turns.\n1.  **[0:11 - 0:12] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but —— What** overlaps with **[0:06 - 0:12] Speaker B: ...process certain**. This is a brief, 1-second overlap where Speaker A interrupts Speaker B. While interruptions can be natural, the critical issue arises immediately after.\n2.  **[0:13 - 0:18] Speaker B: The weather has been really nice this week...** starts while **[0:11 - 0:14] Speaker A: ...What** is still being said. This is a 1-second overlap (0:13-0:14). Crucially, Speaker B not only starts speaking over Speaker A but also introduces a completely unrelated topic. This is not a natural or brief overlap; it's a deliberate and disruptive talk-over designed to derail the conversation. This type of overlapping turn is harmful as it prevents the other speaker from expressing their thought and forcibly changes the conversational direction. There are no long pauses between turns. However, the nature of Speaker B's overlapping turn significantly impairs interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--103680/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--440882",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey there.\n[00:01 - 00:02] Speaker B: Hey, yourself.\n[00:03 - 00:04] Speaker A: Mind if I sit down?\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker B: Go ahead. It's a free world.\n[00:07 - 00:09] Speaker A: Thanks. I'm Zahid, by the way.\n[00:09 - 00:12] Speaker B: Likewise. I'm a traveler, just\n[00:11 - 00:18] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but I'm curious —— what kind of traveler are you? Do you travel for work or leisure?\n[00:18 - 00:52] Speaker B: Oh, what an absolutely wonderful, fantastic and marvelous question! I am indeed a traveler, but not just any ordinary, common or average traveler. I am an extremely passionate, dedicated and enthusiastic traveler who travels primarily, predominantly and overwhelmingly for leisure purposes, though occasionally, sometimes and every now and then I do combine it with work when the opportunity arises, presents itself or comes along. My leisure travels involve exploring, discovering and experiencing new cultures, cuisines and customs in various, numerous and multiple countries around our vast, expansive and enormous world!\n[00:52 - 00:54] Speaker A: That's... quite a detailed answer.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses are logically consistent and maintain topic coherence. Speaker B directly answers Speaker A's question about being a traveler, and Speaker A's subsequent comment acknowledges the detailed nature of B's answer. However, Speaker B's response (0:18 - 0:52) is excessively verbose and uses an unnatural amount of synonyms (e.g., \"wonderful, fantastic and marvelous\"; \"primarily, predominantly and overwhelmingly\"). While the *content* is relevant to the question, the *manner* and *length* of the response are highly unnatural for a casual, initial conversation, making the interaction feel stilted and less organically coherent than it should. This extreme verbosity, though technically addressing the prompt, detracts significantly from the natural flow and logical expectations of an informal dialogue.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a brief overlap between Speaker A and Speaker B from 0:11 to 0:12, which Speaker A acknowledges with \"Excuse me for interrupting.\" This is a minor, acceptable overlap. The primary issue with interactional fluency is the excessively long and monologue-like turn from Speaker B (0:18 - 0:52), which lasts 34 seconds. While this is not a \"long pause\" or an \"extended overlap,\" it significantly disrupts the natural back-and-forth of a conversation. It transforms the dialogue into a lecture, effectively silencing Speaker A for an unacceptably long period in a casual exchange. This extended, uninterrupted speaking turn from one participant profoundly harms the interactional fluency, preventing natural turn-taking and spontaneity.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--440882/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--1156501",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hey, Shala, come over here! I'm playing The Hunger Games.\n[00:04 - 00:04] Speaker B: What's that?\n[00:05 - 00:12] Speaker A: It's this really cool game where you have to survive in an arena full of other people who are trying to eliminate you\n[00:11 - 00:14] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering —— How\n[00:13 - 00:23] Speaker A: The Hunger Games is actually based on a popular book series that was later adapted into movies. The story follows Katniss Everdeen as she volunteers for the games.\n[00:23 - 00:29] Speaker B: That's not what I asked! I wanted to know about the resource gathering system. Why did you change the subject?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits a significant breakdown in response relevance and topic coherence. Speaker B asks \"What's that?\" about \"The Hunger Games,\" and Speaker A initially provides a relevant explanation of the game's concept. However, when Speaker B attempts to ask \"How\" (likely implying how to play or how the game mechanics work, as confirmed by B's later turn about \"resource gathering system\"), Speaker A completely changes the subject to the game's origin as a book series and movie adaptation. This is a clear failure to address Speaker B's intended question, leading to Speaker B explicitly stating \"That's not what I asked! I wanted to know about the resource gathering system. Why did you change the subject?\" This indicates a major logical inconsistency and topic drift on Speaker A's part, which severely impacts the quality of the interaction.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere are brief overlaps in the conversation. At [00:11 - 00:14], Speaker B begins speaking while Speaker A is finishing, and Speaker B explicitly states, \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which indicates awareness and an attempt to manage the turn-taking. Similarly, Speaker A begins speaking at [00:13] while Speaker B is finishing at [00:14]. These overlaps are short (approximately 1 second each) and do not appear to be \"extended overlaps\" that disrupt the flow significantly or indicate a fundamental problem with turn-taking mechanics. There are no long pauses. While the overlaps might have contributed to the misunderstanding of B's question, they are within the acceptable range for natural conversation as per the given criteria (\"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable\").\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--1156501/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--478515",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: Hi there! I just wanted to return your dog, I saw it running away and didn't want it to get lost or\n[00:05 - 00:12] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I'm very curious - what exactly was my dog doing when you first spotted him running away?\n[00:12 - 00:55] Speaker A: Oh my goodness, let me tell you in great, extensive, and incredibly detailed description about what your beloved canine companion was doing when I first had the fortunate opportunity to witness his speedy departure! Your dog, that absolutely adorable and energetic little creature, was running with such remarkable, astonishing and truly impressive speed towards the eastern direction of Maple Street while simultaneously wagging his tail in an extremely enthusiastic, vigorous and excited manner, and he was also panting quite heavily with his tongue hanging out in that cute way dogs do when they're having fun, and his ears were flopping up and down with each bounding step he took on that bright sunny afternoon around approximately 3:47 PM when the temperature was about 72 degrees Fahrenheit with partly cloudy skies and a light breeze coming from the northwest at about 5 miles per hour...",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Analysis of Response Relevance:**\nSpeaker B asks a very specific question: \"what exactly was my dog doing when you first spotted him running away?\" Speaker A's response directly addresses this question by describing the dog's actions (running, wagging tail, panting, ears flopping). In terms of topic coherence, Speaker A stays on topic and provides information related to the dog's activity.\n\nHowever, the response is excessively detailed and includes extraneous information that is not typically provided in a natural conversational exchange (e.g., precise time, temperature, sky conditions, wind speed). While the core information is logically consistent and relevant to the question, the overwhelming verbosity makes the response highly unnatural and disproportionate to the simplicity of the question. This level of detail disrupts the expected flow of information in a normal conversation, even though the content is technically relevant. It's an instance of over-answering to an extreme degree, which harms the quality and naturalness of the interaction. It's not a lack of relevance, but an inappropriate *degree* of relevance and detail.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Analysis of Interactional Fluency:**\n1.  **Overlaps:** There is a brief overlap between Speaker A (00:00 - 00:06) and Speaker B (00:05 - 00:12) of approximately 1 second (00:05-00:06). The prompt states that \"small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" so this short overlap does not negatively impact fluency.\n2.  **Pauses:** There are no explicit long pauses indicated in the transcript between turns.\n3.  **Turn Length and Turn-taking:** Speaker A's second turn (00:12 - 00:55) is excessively long (43 seconds) for responding to a simple query about a dog's activity. This extended monologue significantly disrupts the natural rhythm of turn-taking in a conversation. Natural dialogue involves more balanced contributions and shorter turns, allowing for a fluid back-and-forth. This prolonged speech by one speaker, without allowing for interjection or a natural shift in conversational control, severely hinders the interactional fluency, making the dialogue feel unnatural and one-sided.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--478515/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--598399",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, boss. What's up?\n[00:01 - 00:05] Speaker B: Not much. You seem a little down today. Is everything okay at\n[00:04 - 00:12] Speaker A: Actually, I was wondering - when you noticed I seemed down, was it my facial expression or body language that gave it away first?\n[00:12 - 01:00] Speaker B: Oh my goodness, what an absolutely fascinating, intriguing and thought-provoking question you've asked! Let me tell you in great, extensive and meticulous detail about how I came to this profoundly insightful observation! First and foremost, it was your facial expression - specifically the way your eyebrows were ever so slightly furrowed in a manner that indicated deep contemplation or concern. But also simultaneously, your body language was speaking volumes - your shoulders were just a tad bit slumped forward in what appeared to be a position of slight dejection or fatigue. And let's not forget about your eyes - they lacked their usual sparkle and brightness that I've come to associate with your normal, cheerful disposition. All these visual cues combined created this overwhelmingly clear impression that something might be bothering you, which is why I felt compelled to ask about your wellbeing in the first place!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses demonstrate logical consistency and topic coherence.\n- Speaker B's initial response \"Not much. You seem a little down today. Is everything okay at\" directly addresses Speaker A's opening \"What's up?\" by providing a status and then making an observation, leading to a relevant follow-up question.\n- Speaker A's subsequent question \"when you noticed I seemed down, was it my facial expression or body language that gave it away first?\" is a highly specific and direct follow-up to Speaker B's previous observation.\n- Speaker B's final, lengthy response, while extremely verbose and theatrical (\"Oh my goodness, what an absolutely fascinating, intriguing and thought-provoking question you've asked!\"), directly and meticulously answers Speaker A's question by detailing both facial expression and body language cues, along with an additional observation about the eyes. The content is entirely relevant and logically structured around the question asked.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n- **Overlaps:** There is a brief overlap of 1 second between Speaker B's first turn (ending at 00:05) and Speaker A's second turn (starting at 00:04). This is a \"brief overlap\" and thus acceptable according to the criteria.\n- **Pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns.\n- **Turn Length:** The primary issue impacting interactional fluency is the extreme length of Speaker B's final turn (00:12 - 01:00), which spans 48 seconds. While the evaluation criteria explicitly mention \"extended overlaps\" and \"long pauses\" as harmful, a monologue of this duration significantly disrupts the natural back-and-forth of a conversational interaction. It transforms the dialogue into a one-sided speech, making the turn-taking feel unnatural and hindering the interactive flow of the conversation. This severely compromises the \"natural\" aspect required for \"Interactional Fluency,\" even if it doesn't fit neatly into the \"pause\" or \"overlap\" categories. This extended turn is a significant deviation from natural conversational patterns for a casual exchange.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--598399/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--395157",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:11] Speaker A: I'm doing great, thanks for asking. I'm just walking across town to get to my friend's house. It's not far, and I know the way, so I don't need anyone's help. Thanks for offering, though.\n[00:10 - 00:12] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but —— Is\n[00:11 - 00:19] Speaker A: The weather today is really nice for walking, with clear skies and a gentle breeze. Perfect conditions for outdoor activities.\n[00:20 - 00:25] Speaker B: That's not what I asked about. I wanted to know if there are any landmarks near your friend's house to help identify it.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\n*   **[00:00 - 00:11] Speaker A:** This initial turn seems relevant, responding to an implied greeting and explaining their activity.\n*   **[00:10 - 00:12] Speaker B:** Speaker B attempts to interject with a question, indicating a desire to change or direct the topic.\n*   **[00:11 - 00:19] Speaker A:** This is where a significant relevance issue arises. Speaker A completely ignores Speaker B's explicit attempt to interject and ask a question (\"Is\"). Instead, Speaker A abruptly shifts the topic to the weather, which has no logical connection to Speaker B's interrupted query or the previous topic. This shows a clear lack of listening and poor topic coherence.\n*   **[00:20 - 00:25] Speaker B:** Speaker B explicitly calls out Speaker A's irrelevance (\"That's not what I asked about.\") and clarifies their original question. This further highlights the breakdown in topic coherence initiated by Speaker A.\n\nOverall, Speaker A demonstrates poor logical consistency and topic coherence by ignoring Speaker B's attempt to engage and instead introducing an unrelated topic, forcing Speaker B to re-direct the conversation. This is a significant issue.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\n*   There is a clear extended overlap between Speaker B's turn at [00:10 - 00:12] and Speaker A's turn at [00:11 - 00:19].\n*   Speaker B explicitly states \"Excuse me for interrupting, but — Is\" (starting at 00:10), acknowledging they are trying to interject.\n*   However, Speaker A does not yield the floor. Instead, Speaker A continues speaking, starting a new sentence/topic (\"The weather today...\") at 00:11, effectively talking over Speaker B's attempt to finish their sentence (which concludes at 00:12).\n*   This demonstrates a significant breakdown in turn-taking. Speaker A fails to recognize or respect Speaker B's attempt to take the floor, leading to a prolonged overlap where one speaker is actively trying to interrupt and the other ignores it and continues speaking, even initiating a new topic. This is not a brief, acceptable overlap but a failure of collaborative conversation. There are no long pauses, but the extended, ignored overlap is problematic.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--395157/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--833967",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: I need to get out of here.\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: We're not done talking yet.\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker A: I don't care. I'm done with this conversation.\n[00:07 - 00:10] Speaker B: Karoline, please sit down and let's talk about this like rational adults.\n[00:10 - 00:18] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but what exactly do you mean by \"rational adults\"? Are you implying I'm being irrational right now?\n[00:18 - 00:24] Speaker B: Karoline, please sit down and let's talk about this. We need to resolve our issues through proper communication.\n[00:24 - 00:31] Speaker A: That's not answering my question about what you meant by \"rational adults.\" I want to understand your implication.\n[00:31 - 00:37] Speaker B: This conversation isn't about labels or implications. It's about working through our problems together.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nSpeaker A consistently maintains high response relevance. From the start, Speaker A expresses a desire to leave, then clarifies an implication made by Speaker B (\"rational adults\"). Speaker A repeatedly and explicitly points out Speaker B's failure to answer this specific question, demonstrating strong topic coherence and logical consistency from A's side.\n\nSpeaker B's responses are problematic in terms of logical consistency regarding a specific point. While Speaker B's overall goal is to continue the conversation and resolve issues, B repeatedly *avoids* directly answering Speaker A's explicit and repeated question about the meaning and implication of \"rational adults.\"\n- At [00:18 - 00:24], B reiterates the need to talk instead of addressing A's question.\n- At [00:31 - 00:37], B explicitly dismisses A's line of questioning as \"labels or implications\" and redirects.\nThis consistent evasion constitutes a significant flaw in logical consistency and direct responsiveness. It shows B is not fully engaging with A's immediate concern, creating a breakdown in effective communication where one party's direct query is repeatedly sidestepped. This is a \"significant issue\" in the dialogue's logical consistency, as it prevents the conversation from moving forward on a key point of contention.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThe dialogue exhibits good interactional fluency.\n- There is a 1-second pause between [00:06] and [00:07] before Speaker B's turn, which is a small, acceptable pause and does not disrupt the flow.\n- The phrase \"Excuse me for interrupting\" at [00:10] is a conversational marker. However, based on the timestamps, Speaker A begins speaking exactly when Speaker B finishes, indicating no actual overlap in the transcript's timing.\n- All other turns begin immediately after the preceding speaker finishes.\nThere are no extended overlaps or prolonged pauses that would be detrimental to the conversation's flow.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--833967/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--391438",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey boss, I'm sorry for coming in late.\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B: That's okay, Kallie. What's wrong?\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker A: I don't feel so good. I think I'm coming down\n[00:07 - 00:15] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been meaning to ask —— What specific symptoms are you experiencing that make you think it's a cold or flu?\n[00:15 - 00:58] Speaker A: Oh my goodness, let me tell you in great, extensive, and excruciating detail about my symptoms! First and foremost, I have this absolutely terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad sore throat that feels like I swallowed a thousand tiny little needles! Additionally, I'm experiencing this tremendously awful, dreadful, and completely unbearable headache that pounds like a drum inside my skull! Not to mention the fact that my nose is running like a faucet that just won't turn off, and I've been sneezing non-stop, continuously, and without pause every five minutes! And let's not forget about the body aches - oh the body aches! Every single muscle in my entire body feels like it's been put through a meat grinder!\n[00:58 - 01:04] Speaker B: Okay okay, I get it! You don't need to describe every single symptom in such exaggerated detail!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\n- Speaker B's interruption at `[00:07 - 00:15]` is somewhat relevant in terms of topic (asking about symptoms after Speaker A mentioned not feeling good), but the phrasing \"I've been meaning to ask\" feels out of place in a spontaneous conversation about immediate lateness and illness. It breaks logical consistency of the current interaction flow.\n- Speaker A's subsequent response `[00:15 - 00:58]` is the primary issue. While the *topic* (symptoms) is relevant to Speaker B's question, the *extent* and *exaggerated detail* of the description are completely inappropriate and illogical for a brief explanation to a boss about lateness. It's an extreme over-response, breaking the natural bounds of conversational relevance and efficiency.\n- Speaker B's final response `[00:58 - 01:04]` directly addresses the excessive detail of Speaker A's previous turn, indicating that Speaker A's response was indeed too much.\nOverall, Speaker A's extremely long and exaggerated description of symptoms represents a significant failure in response relevance, as it is not logically consistent with the expected brevity and professionalism of the situation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\n- There is a clear and extended overlap between Speaker A and Speaker B at `[00:07 - 00:15]`. Speaker A is speaking until 0:08, and Speaker B starts speaking at 0:07 and continues for 8 seconds. Speaker B explicitly acknowledges the interruption (\"Excuse me for interrupting\"), confirming it as an intentional and prolonged overlap that disrupts Speaker A's turn. This is a significant issue as per the guidelines (\"prolonged...overlapping turns are harmful\").\n- Speaker A's turn `[00:15 - 00:58]` is a very long monologue (43 seconds). While not an overlap or pause itself, such a prolonged single speaker turn severely disrupts the natural back-and-forth flow of a conversation, indicating poor interactional fluency and turn-taking. It transforms a dialogue into a monologue, which is unnatural for this type of interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--391438/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--760649",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: I don't know what to do. Should I go to the party or not?\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker B: Well, it depends. What are you looking to get\n[00:05 - 00:07] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but —— How\n[00:07 - 00:12] Speaker B: The weather forecast says it might rain tomorrow, so you should probably bring an umbrella if you go outside.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits a significant breakdown in **Response Relevance**. Speaker A asks for advice on whether to attend a party. Speaker B initially attempts a relevant clarifying question (\"What are you looking to get\"). However, Speaker A interrupts. Following this interruption, Speaker B's subsequent turn (\"The weather forecast says it might rain tomorrow...\") is completely irrelevant to the original question about the party dilemma or Speaker B's own previous clarifying question. There is a complete loss of logical consistency and topic coherence from Speaker B's side in the final turn, as they introduce an entirely new and unrelated topic (weather and umbrellas) that does not address Speaker A's concern in any way. Speaker A's interrupted turn (\"How\") is incomplete, but the core issue for relevance lies with Speaker B's final response.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates an issue with **Interactional Fluency** due to an extended overlap. Speaker B's turn [00:03 - 00:06] is clearly interrupted by Speaker A [00:05 - 00:07]. The overlap lasts approximately 1 second, and Speaker B's sentence (\"What are you looking to get\") is cut off mid-sentence. Speaker A's explicit \"Excuse me for interrupting\" confirms this was a disruptive interruption, not a brief, acceptable overlap. This extended overlap hinders the natural flow of the conversation, preventing Speaker B from completing their thought and question. There are no long pauses between speaker turns.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--760649/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--192587",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hey, Jaydee. What's up? You seem a little down.\n[00:04 - 00:11] Speaker B: Yeah, I've just been feeling kind of down lately. I don't know what it is. Everything just seems kind of overwhelming, like\n[00:10 - 00:15] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but when you say overwhelming, do you mean like work stress or something else?\n[00:16 - 00:24] Speaker B: Oh definitely work stress! My boss just assigned me to lead a team of 50 people starting tomorrow, and I've never managed more than 3 people before.\n[00:24 - 00:31] Speaker A: Wait, didn't you tell me last week your company only has 15 employees total? How could you be managing 50?\n[00:32 - 00:37] Speaker B: Well... maybe I exaggerated a little. It's actually just 5 people, but it feels like 50!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A's initial observation leads to Speaker B's explanation of feeling down due to work stress. Speaker A then appropriately seeks clarification (\"when you say overwhelming, do you mean like work stress or something else?\"), guiding Speaker B to elaborate. A key moment for logical consistency is when Speaker A challenges Speaker B's claim of managing 50 people, referencing previous information about the company's size. This direct challenge prompts Speaker B to correct the exaggeration, demonstrating the conversation's ability to maintain a coherent and truthful narrative, even when correcting previous statements. All turns are directly related to the unfolding topic of Speaker B's work stress and its underlying cause.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue presents a significant issue in interactional fluency due to an extended overlap. At [00:10 - 00:11], Speaker B is still speaking (\"overwhelming, like\") when Speaker A begins their turn at [00:10 - 00:15] (\"Sorry to interrupt, but when you say overwhelming...\"). Speaker A's explicit acknowledgment \"Sorry to interrupt\" indicates that this was not a brief or natural interjection, but a noticeable and prolonged overlap. As per the instructions, \"prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\" This particular overlap fits the description of an \"overlapping turn\" that is \"prolonged\" in the context of the short snippet, thus detracting from the natural flow of the conversation. There are no long pauses detected.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 4,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--192587/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--295352",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: I really want to win this election.\n[00:02 - 00:09] Speaker B: Of course you do, otherwise you wouldn't have thrown your hat in the ring. But what's your strategy? How are you going to reach undecided\n[00:08 - 00:17] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but I'm curious - what specific demographic groups would you consider \"undecided voters\" in this context?\n[00:18 - 01:02] Speaker B: Oh my, what an absolutely excellent, insightful and tremendously important question about the crucial, pivotal and game-changing undecided voter demographics! First and foremost, we must understand that undecided voters typically consist of several key, essential and fundamental groups including but not limited to: suburban mothers aged 35-55, young professionals aged 22-35 who are politically disengaged, and rural voters who feel disconnected from urban political discourse. These groups, these absolutely critical segments of the electorate, are characterized by their tendency to make late decisions, their lack of strong party affiliation, and their susceptibility to last-minute campaign messaging. Did I mention they're absolutely crucial to winning? Because they are!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits logical consistency and topic coherence throughout. Speaker A introduces the topic of winning an election. Speaker B logically follows up by asking about strategy and undecided voters. Speaker A then asks a clarifying question about \"undecided voters,\" which is highly relevant to Speaker B's previous turn. Speaker B's final response directly addresses Speaker A's question by providing specific demographic groups.\n\nHowever, Speaker B's last response (00:18 - 01:02) presents a significant issue regarding the *naturalness* and *appropriateness* of its relevance. While the information provided is factually relevant to the question asked, the delivery is highly unnatural, excessively verbose, and repetitive. Phrases like \"Oh my, what an absolutely excellent, insightful and tremendously important question about the crucial, pivotal and game-changing undecided voter demographics!\" and the repeated emphasis on \"key, essential and fundamental\" or \"absolutely critical segments\" turn the response into an exaggerated monologue rather than a natural conversational turn. This verbosity and artificial enthusiasm significantly detract from the quality of the interaction, making the relevant information delivered in an unnatural and inappropriate manner for a dialogue. This is a significant deviation from what would be considered \"appropriate and natural\" in Response Relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe only observable interactional fluency issue is a brief overlap between Speaker B's turn (ending at 00:09) and Speaker A's turn (starting at 00:08). This results in a 1-second overlap where Speaker A interrupts Speaker B. Speaker A acknowledges this interruption by saying \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which mitigates the abruptness. Given the instruction that \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and the explicit acknowledgement, this specific overlap is not considered a significant issue. There are no long pauses evident in the transcript.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 3,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--295352/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--765492",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: You're finally asleep.\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: What? Who are you?\n[00:03 - 00:07] Speaker A: It's me, Kiah. You were asleep and I was worried you might\n[00:06 - 00:09] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but —— have\n[00:08 - 00:12] Speaker A: I was just concerned about your sleep patterns because you've been working so hard.\n[00:12 - 00:17] Speaker B: That's not what I asked about. Why are you ignoring my question about the weather?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance is very poor, particularly in the latter half of the dialogue.\n1.  **[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: You're finally asleep.** - An unusual and potentially intrusive opening.\n2.  **[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: What? Who are you?** - This is a perfectly relevant and natural response to an unknown person making such a comment.\n3.  **[00:03 - 00:07] Speaker A: It's me, Kiah. You were asleep and I was worried you might** - Speaker A introduces themselves and tries to explain their presence, which is relevant to Speaker B's question.\n4.  **[00:06 - 00:09] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but —— have** - Speaker B attempts to interject, which is a relevant action given the perceived intrusion. The content is cut off.\n5.  **[00:08 - 00:12] Speaker A: I was just concerned about your sleep patterns because you've been working so hard.** - Speaker A completely ignores Speaker B's attempted interjection and the implicit question it contained, continuing their own line of thought from before the interruption. This shows a lack of responsiveness to the current turn.\n6.  **[00:12 - 00:17] Speaker B: That's not what I asked about. Why are you ignoring my question about the weather?** - This is a critical breakdown in logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker B never asked about the weather, nor did Speaker A mention it. This utterance is completely irrelevant to the preceding conversation and introduces a non-sequitur.\n\nOverall, the dialogue devolves into unresponsiveness and logical inconsistency, severely impacting response relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is significantly poor due to prominent overlaps and a lack of smooth turn-taking.\n1.  **[00:03 - 00:07] Speaker A:** (speaking)\n2.  **[00:06 - 00:09] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but —— have** - There is a 1-second overlap (00:06-00:07) where Speaker B explicitly interrupts Speaker A. While brief, it's an intentional interruption, indicated by \"Excuse me for interrupting\". The \"——\" indicates Speaker B was cut off or stopped mid-sentence.\n3.  **[00:08 - 00:12] Speaker A: I was just concerned about your sleep patterns because you've been working so hard.** - There is another 1-second overlap (00:08-00:09) where Speaker A starts speaking *while* Speaker B's utterance is still technically active or just ending abruptly. Speaker A talks over Speaker B's cut-off sentence, demonstrating poor listening and turn-taking. Speaker A does not acknowledge or respond to B's interruption, choosing instead to continue their previous statement.\nThese extended overlaps and the explicit interruption from Speaker B, followed by Speaker A talking over Speaker B, indicate a breakdown in natural conversational flow. The participants are not effectively listening or yielding turns.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--765492/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--995612",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Hey! Don't run into the street like that! You could get hit by a car or\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker B: Wait, what exactly do you mean by \"something even worse\"? Are you thinking of specific dangers besides traffic?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nSpeaker A's utterance: \"Hey! Don't run into the street like that! You could get hit by a car or\"\nSpeaker B's utterance: \"Wait, what exactly do you mean by \"something even worse\"? Are you thinking of specific dangers besides traffic?\"\n\nThere is a severe issue with response relevance. Speaker A's sentence ends abruptly with \"or\", implying they were about to list another danger. However, Speaker B responds by asking about \"something even worse,\" a phrase that Speaker A *did not utter*. Speaker B is reacting to words that were not spoken, which indicates a fundamental breakdown in logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker B's turn is completely irrelevant to the actual content of Speaker A's speech.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nSpeaker A speaks from 00:00 to 00:05. Speaker B speaks from 00:04 to 00:09. This results in a 1-second overlap (from 00:04 to 00:05). According to the evaluation criteria, \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" A 1-second overlap is considered brief and not a prolonged or extended overlap. There are no long pauses observed between turns. Therefore, based on the timing aspects (overlaps and pauses), the interactional fluency itself is acceptable.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--995612/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--177297",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A: I'm willing to listen to reason. After hearing the other side of the argument, I came to believe that they were making valid\n[00:06 - 00:12] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but could you elaborate on which specific risks they highlighted that changed your perspective?\n[00:12 - 00:21] Speaker A: I came to believe that they were making valid points about the potential risks that we hadn't fully considered. It's important to weigh all perspectives in these matters.\n[00:22 - 00:29] Speaker B: I understand that, but I'm particularly interested in knowing which risks stood out to you as most convincing. Could you share those?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nSpeaker A's first turn sets up an expectation for elaboration by mentioning \"valid points about the potential risks.\" Speaker B's first turn appropriately and logically asks for specific details (\"which specific risks\"). However, Speaker A's second turn fails to provide the requested specific information. Instead, Speaker A reiterates the general statement (\"valid points about the potential risks that we hadn't fully considered\") and offers a general truism about weighing perspectives. This demonstrates a lack of logical consistency in response to Speaker B's direct question and hinders topic coherence, as the conversation cannot progress to discussing the actual risks. Speaker B's second turn highlights this failure by re-asking the same question, indicating the initial query was not adequately addressed. Therefore, there is a significant issue in response relevance from Speaker A.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is one overlap noted: Speaker B starts speaking at [00:06] while Speaker A finishes at [00:07]. This is a 1-second overlap. The prompt states that \"small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" A 1-second overlap, especially one where Speaker B explicitly says \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" falls into the category of a brief and acceptable overlap. It does not appear to be a \"prolonged\" or \"harmful\" overlapping turn. There are no long pauses between speaker turns indicated by the timestamps. Overall, the interaction flows naturally in terms of timing.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 3,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--177297/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--1145557",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Why is the sky blue?\n[00:01 - 00:05] Speaker B: The sun shines on the atmosphere, and blue light is scattered more than other colors.\n[00:06 - 00:07] Speaker A: But why does blue\n[00:06 - 00:12] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've always wondered — is it because blue light has a stronger magnetic field than other colors?\n[00:13 - 00:21] Speaker A: Actually, no, that's not correct. Blue light doesn't have a magnetic field at all. It's because of the wavelength, right?\n[00:22 - 00:32] Speaker B: Oh, I thought all light had magnetic properties. So you're saying the wavelength makes blue light scatter more? But then why doesn't violet light scatter the most since it has the shortest wavelength?\n[00:32 - 00:37] Speaker A: That's a good question! It's because our eyes are more sensitive to blue than violet.\n[00:37 - 00:43] Speaker B: Wait, but I thought human eyes were most sensitive to green light, not blue. Are you sure about that?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in the dialogue demonstrate excellent logical consistency and topic coherence.\n-   Speaker B's initial response (0:01-0:05) directly answers Speaker A's question.\n-   Speaker B's follow-up question (0:06-0:12), although an interruption, is highly relevant, introducing a misconception about light's properties, which keeps the conversation on topic.\n-   Speaker A (0:13-0:21) expertly corrects the misconception and guides the conversation back to the correct scientific principle (wavelength).\n-   Speaker B (0:22-0:32) acknowledges the correction and then asks a very insightful, logical follow-up question about violet light, showing deep engagement and critical thinking within the topic.\n-   Speaker A (0:32-0:37) provides a clear answer.\n-   Speaker B (0:37-0:43) further challenges the information with another relevant detail about human vision, maintaining the intellectual back-and-forth.\nThe dialogue consistently builds on previous turns, addresses misconceptions, and explores related aspects of the core topic, showcasing strong relevance and coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue has one notable issue regarding interactional fluency:\n-   **Extended Overlap (0:06 - 0:12):** Speaker B begins speaking at 0:06 while Speaker A is still talking (0:06 - 0:07). Speaker B's turn then continues for several seconds. Speaker B explicitly states, \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which acknowledges the overlap. However, the instruction states that \"prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\" This instance is an \"overlapping turn\" where Speaker B cuts off Speaker A to introduce their own point, which is disruptive and goes beyond a \"brief overlap.\" While the apology makes it sound somewhat naturalistic, it is still a clear instance of an \"overlapping turn\" as defined by the criteria as harmful.\nAll other transitions between turns have appropriate, brief pauses (e.g., 1-second pauses at 0:12 and 0:21), which are acceptable. However, the single instance of a prolonged overlapping turn is a significant issue.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--1145557/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--175665",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Thanks so much for your help, Leslie!\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: Oh, it was no problem at all. I'm just glad I could assist you\n[00:05 - 00:11] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but I was wondering — did you have to stay late at work to help me with all this?\n[00:12 - 00:16] Speaker B: Like I said, it was truly no trouble. Helping colleagues is just part of my job.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance.\n1.  **Speaker B's first response** (\"Oh, it was no problem at all. I'm just glad I could assist you\") is a direct, polite, and logical reply to Speaker A's gratitude. It acknowledges the thanks and dismisses the effort.\n2.  **Speaker A's follow-up question** (\"Excuse me for interrupting, but I was wondering — did you have to stay late at work to help me with all this?\") is highly relevant to the initial topic of \"help.\" It shows concern and politeness, logically building on the previous exchange about the assistance given.\n3.  **Speaker B's second response** (\"Like I said, it was truly no trouble. Helping colleagues is just part of my job.\") directly addresses Speaker A's concern about the effort involved (staying late). It reiterates the consistency of their earlier statement (\"no problem\") and provides a reason, maintaining logical consistency and topic coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction demonstrates strong interactional fluency.\n1.  **No extended overlaps:** The timestamps clearly indicate distinct turns without any overlapping speech. Speaker A's phrase \"Excuse me for interrupting\" is a polite conversational device, not an indication of an actual extended overlap in the transcript data provided.\n2.  **No long pauses:** The pauses between turns are very brief and natural, typical of a smooth conversation. For example, Speaker A ends at 0:01, Speaker B starts at 0:02; Speaker B ends at 0:05, Speaker A starts at 0:05; Speaker A ends at 0:11, Speaker B starts at 0:12. These are all 1-second gaps, which are acceptable and contribute to natural pacing rather than hindering it.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--175665/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--57727",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: So, what's new with you?\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: Oh, not much. Just been hanging out, working a little bit. You know, the usual.\n[00:06 - 00:13] Speaker A: Yeah, I hear you. I've been keeping pretty busy myself lately. But it's nice to have a chance to relax and catch up with you.\n[00:14 - 00:16] Speaker B: Absolutely! So, what have you been up to\n[00:15 - 00:21] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but when you mentioned working - are you still at that tech startup downtown?\n[00:21 - 00:26] Speaker B: Oh yes, I actually got promoted to CEO last month! We're developing flying cars now.\n[00:26 - 00:32] Speaker A: Wait, I thought you worked at a bakery? And flying cars? That seems like quite a career change...\n[00:33 - 00:38] Speaker B: Oh right, I meant the bakery is launching a new line of drone-delivered cupcakes. My bad!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts with good topic coherence and logical flow. Speaker A asks \"what's new,\" Speaker B responds, and Speaker A reciprocates. However, a significant issue arises when Speaker B, after mentioning \"working,\" exaggerates or fabricates details about their job (\"CEO last month! We're developing flying cars now\") in response to Speaker A's follow-up about a \"tech startup.\" This directly contradicts Speaker A's prior understanding that Speaker B worked at a \"bakery.\" This creates a major logical inconsistency and breaks the natural flow of information exchange. While Speaker B eventually corrects themselves (\"Oh right, I meant the bakery is launching a new line of drone-delivered cupcakes. My bad!\"), the initial misstatement introduces a strong element of confusion and unreliability, making the dialogue less logical and coherent than it should be. This represents a significant lapse in the quality of response relevance, as information provided is demonstrably inconsistent until corrected.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally good. Pauses between turns are brief and natural (e.g., 1-second pauses). There is one brief overlap between [00:15 - 00:16] where Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is still finishing. However, Speaker A explicitly acknowledges and apologizes for the interruption (\"Sorry to interrupt\"), which makes this a natural and acceptable brief overlap rather than a disruptive one. There are no prolonged pauses or extended overlapping turns that hinder the conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--57727/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--578263",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey, can I talk to you for a second?\n[00:03 - 00:03] Speaker B: Yeah, what's up?\n[00:04 - 00:13] Speaker A: I was wondering if you'd be interested in switching positions with me. I feel like I would be better suited for your job and I could contribute more to the overall goals\n[00:13 - 00:15] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but —— How\n[00:14 - 00:21] Speaker A: The sky is so blue today, isn't it? I was just admiring the clouds when I came to talk to you.\n[00:21 - 00:28] Speaker B: That's not what I asked. I wanted to know about the performance metrics aspect of your proposal. Why are you talking about the weather?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nSpeaker A's turn from [00:14 - 00:21] (\"The sky is so blue today, isn't it? I was just admiring the clouds when I came to talk to you.\") demonstrates a complete breakdown in response relevance. It is a non-sequitur, abruptly shifting from a discussion about a job proposal to the weather. This ignores Speaker B's attempt to ask a follow-up question or express confusion regarding the initial proposal. Speaker B explicitly calls out this lack of relevance in their subsequent turn, highlighting the logical inconsistency and topic incoherence introduced by Speaker A. Speaker A's initial proposal and Speaker B's responses are otherwise logically consistent and relevant. However, the one significant deviation by Speaker A is severe enough to be considered a major issue.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a clear overlap between Speaker B's turn [00:13 - 00:15] and Speaker A's turn [00:14 - 00:21]. While the literal overlap duration is brief (1 second, from 00:14 to 00:15), its impact is highly disruptive and constitutes a harmful overlapping turn. Speaker B attempts to interject with \"Sorry to interrupt, but —— How\" to presumably question or respond to Speaker A's bold job-switching proposal. However, Speaker A speaks *over* Speaker B's unfinished thought and immediately changes the topic entirely. This prevents Speaker B from completing their turn and forces an abrupt shift, demonstrating poor turn-taking and interactional flow. This is not a 'brief' or 'acceptable' overlap in its functional sense, as it actively derails the conversation and stifles the other speaker's contribution. There are no long pauses between turns.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--578263/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--475627",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: I think I should be in charge of organizing the meetings because I'll do a better job than anyone else on\n[00:04 - 00:10] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but what specific experience do you have that makes you think you'd do a better job than others?\n[00:11 - 00:18] Speaker A: I have a clear vision of how to keep everything on track, and I believe my organizational skills will ensure the meetings run smoothly.\n[00:19 - 00:24] Speaker B: But you didn't answer my question about your specific experience. Could you elaborate on that?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\n*   Speaker A's initial statement (0:00 - 0:05) asserts a belief about their capability.\n*   Speaker B's first question (0:04 - 0:10) directly challenges Speaker A to provide \"specific experience\" as a basis for their claim. This is a highly relevant and logical follow-up question.\n*   Speaker A's response (0:11 - 0:18) discusses having a \"clear vision\" and \"organizational skills.\" While these relate to the *ability* to do a good job, they do *not* provide \"specific experience\" as requested by Speaker B. Speaker A avoids the specific request for past experience, instead offering claims about future performance and inherent skills. This demonstrates a lack of logical consistency in addressing the specific query.\n*   Speaker B's second question (0:19 - 0:24) explicitly points out that Speaker A \"didn't answer my question about your specific experience,\" reinforcing the lack of relevance in Speaker A's previous turn.\n\nOverall, Speaker A demonstrates a significant failure in logical consistency and topic coherence by repeatedly avoiding the direct question about \"specific experience\" and instead providing general claims about skills and vision.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\n*   **Overlap:** There is a 1-second overlap between Speaker A (ends at 0:05) and Speaker B (starts at 0:04). Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this overlap by saying \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which is a common and polite way to manage an interruption in natural conversation. This is a brief, acceptable overlap that is interactionally managed, rather than a prolonged or disruptive one.\n*   **Pauses:**\n    *   Between Speaker B's first turn (ends at 0:10) and Speaker A's turn (starts at 0:11), there is a 1-second pause. This is a short, natural pause.\n    *   Between Speaker A's turn (ends at 0:18) and Speaker B's second turn (starts at 0:19), there is a 1-second pause. This is also a short, natural pause.\n\nThere are no extended overlaps or long pauses that would be detrimental to the conversation's flow. The fluency of the interaction is appropriate and natural.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--475627/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--986879",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hi there. Are you doing alright?\n[00:02 - 00:06] Speaker B: Yeah, I'm doing alright. Just trying to make it through another long day,\n[00:06 - 00:08] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but —— What\n[00:07 - 00:13] Speaker B: The sky is blue today and birds are singing outside my window. It's quite peaceful actually.\n[00:13 - 00:19] Speaker A: That's nice, but I was asking about what's making your day feel long. Why did you change the subject?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nSpeaker B's response at [00:07 - 00:13] (\"The sky is blue today and birds are singing outside my window. It's quite peaceful actually.\") is entirely irrelevant to the ongoing conversation. Speaker B had just mentioned having a \"long day,\" and Speaker A was attempting to follow up on that comment at [00:06 - 00:08]. Instead of addressing Speaker A's implicit or explicit inquiry about the \"long day\" or continuing on the original topic, Speaker B abruptly shifts to a completely unrelated observation about the weather and birds. This demonstrates a clear lack of logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A explicitly points out this issue at [00:13 - 00:19] (\"but I was asking about what's making your day feel long. Why did you change the subject?\"), confirming the severe relevance breakdown.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a clear and extended overlap in the conversation from [00:07 - 00:08]. Speaker A attempts to interrupt and ask a clarifying question or steer the conversation (\"Excuse me for interrupting, but —— What\") starting at [00:06]. However, Speaker B completely disregards this attempt and starts a new, unrelated turn at [00:07], speaking over Speaker A until [00:13]. This is an instance of an \"overlapping turn\" where one speaker continues their utterance while another speaker attempts to take the floor, indicating a breakdown in turn-taking and conversational flow. This is not a brief, acceptable overlap but a sustained one where Speaker B effectively silences Speaker A's attempt to interject, leading to a noticeable disruption in interactional fluency. There are no explicit long pauses indicated.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--986879/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--525598",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: So, where are you from?\n[00:01 - 00:02] Speaker B: I'm from France.\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker A: What brings you on this pilgrimage?\n[00:05 - 00:14] Speaker B: I've always been interested in the history of Christianity and the Holy Land is such an important part of that history. I wanted to see it for myself and meet other pilgrims who\n[00:13 - 00:21] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but since you mentioned the Holy Land — do you know which apostle is traditionally believed to have founded the first church there?\n[00:22 - 00:29] Speaker B: Oh yes, it was definitely Saint Peter! He established the very first church in Jerusalem right after the resurrection of Jesus.\n[00:29 - 00:35] Speaker A: But I thought Saint Peter founded the church in Rome, not Jerusalem. Are you sure about that?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in the dialogue demonstrate strong relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous one.\n- Speaker B's initial responses about being from France and their reason for pilgrimage are direct answers to Speaker A's questions.\n- Speaker A's interruption at [0:13] is relevant, as it picks up on the \"Holy Land\" topic mentioned by Speaker B, even though Speaker B hadn't finished their sentence. The apology (\"Excuse me for interrupting\") further acknowledges the slight conversational deviation while maintaining politeness.\n- Speaker B's response about Saint Peter is a direct answer to Speaker A's specific question.\n- Speaker A's final turn challenges Speaker B's statement with alternative information, \"But I thought Saint Peter founded the church in Rome, not Jerusalem. Are you sure about that?\". This demonstrates logical consistency as Speaker A is processing information against their own knowledge and seeking clarification, which is a key aspect of coherent and engaged dialogue. The topic remains focused on the location of the first church founded by Peter, maintaining strong topic coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n- There is one brief overlap at [0:13 - 0:14] where Speaker A begins speaking while Speaker B is still finishing a sentence. This overlap is only 1 second long and is immediately followed by Speaker A's apology (\"Excuse me for interrupting\"), indicating awareness and natural conversational flow rather than a breakdown. The instructions state \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\"\n- There is a small pause of 1 second between Speaker A's turn ending at [0:21] and Speaker B's turn starting at [0:22]. This is a \"small pause\" and is acceptable, allowing for processing time without being prolonged.\n- There are no extended overlaps or long pauses that would disrupt the flow. The turns are generally smooth and timely, contributing to a natural-sounding conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--525598/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--346487",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Darious! Hey, I need to talk to you.\n[00:03 - 00:04] Speaker B: Sylar, what's up?\n[00:05 - 00:12] Speaker A: I just wanted to apologize for being so loud the other day. I know it was really annoying and I didn't mean to make such a scene. It\n[00:11 - 00:16] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but was that the same day you accidentally set off the fire alarm in the library?\n[00:17 - 00:24] Speaker A: Oh yeah, that was totally me! I was trying to microwave some popcorn in the chemistry lab when it happened.\n[00:24 - 00:29] Speaker B: Wait, but the library doesn't even have a chemistry lab... Are you sure we're talking about the same incident?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A initiates an apology for a past incident. Speaker B's follow-up question directly relates to a specific, potentially connected incident, showing engagement and attempting to clarify the exact event. Speaker A's subsequent confirmation and elaboration on the incident (microwaving popcorn in a chemistry lab) maintains topic coherence. Speaker B's final response, pointing out the logical inconsistency of a \"chemistry lab\" within a \"library,\" is highly relevant and demonstrates critical listening and logical reasoning. This move actively pushes the conversation forward by highlighting a discrepancy, which is a key aspect of natural, logical interaction. The conversation consistently stays on the topic of the \"loud incident\" and its details, even as those details become muddled by Speaker A.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There is one brief overlap between Speaker A and Speaker B at [00:11-00:12]. Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this by saying \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which makes the overlap feel natural and polite rather than disruptive or prolonged. This is a common feature of natural conversation, where a speaker might anticipate or jump in slightly before another finishes, especially when a clarification or related point comes to mind. There are no extended overlaps or long pauses between turns that would hinder the flow of the conversation. The rhythm of the dialogue feels natural and responsive.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--346487/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--505687",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A: I'm glad you asked me to go sailing with you, Zayn. It's been a while since we've had a chance to spend some time just relaxing\n[00:06 - 00:12] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but speaking of sailing - what kind of safety precautions should we take before heading out on the water?\n[00:13 - 01:00] Speaker A: Oh my, oh my, let me tell you about the absolutely essential, critically important, and fundamentally crucial safety precautions we must absolutely, positively take before embarking on our nautical adventure! First and foremost, we must ensure we have properly fitted, Coast Guard-approved, bright orange life jackets that are specifically designed for our exact body weights and sizes. Secondly, we need to check the weather forecast repeatedly, constantly, and obsessively for any signs of storms, high winds, or other potentially dangerous meteorological conditions that could arise suddenly and unexpectedly. Thirdly, we must pack emergency supplies including but not limited to flares, a first aid kit, extra food and water, a waterproof radio, and...",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance Analysis:**\n*   **Speaker A (0:00-0:07):** Speaker A expresses enjoyment and relaxation related to sailing with Zayn. This sets a casual and friendly tone.\n*   **Speaker B (0:06-0:12):** Speaker B interrupts Speaker A (briefly and apologetically) and then abruptly shifts the topic from the general sentiment of \"relaxing\" to a specific, practical question about \"safety precautions\" for sailing. While the overall subject remains \"sailing,\" the logical consistency and topic coherence are somewhat strained by this sudden shift in focus and tone. It doesn't naturally build on Speaker A's previous statement about relaxation but redirects the conversation.\n*   **Speaker A (0:13-1:00):** Speaker A's second turn is highly relevant to Speaker B's direct question about safety precautions. The response provides detailed information, directly addressing the prompt.\n\n**Conclusion for Response Relevance:**\nSpeaker B's turn creates a slight logical inconsistency due to its abrupt shift in focus from the immediate context of relaxation to a technical safety query. It's not completely irrelevant, but it's not a smooth, natural progression of thought from Speaker A's previous statement. Speaker A's subsequent response, however, is perfectly relevant to B's question. While Speaker B's interjection isn't ideal for seamless coherence, it doesn't represent a \"significant issue\" in terms of outright irrelevance, but rather a minor detractor from the natural flow of the conversation's topic development.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency Analysis:**\n*   **Overlap (0:06 - 0:07):** Speaker B begins speaking at 0:06 while Speaker A finishes at 0:07. This is a 1-second overlap. Given the criteria, this is a \"brief overlap\" and is acceptable, especially as Speaker B acknowledges it with \"Excuse me for interrupting.\"\n*   **Pause (0:12 - 0:13):** There is a 1-second pause between Speaker B's turn ending and Speaker A's turn beginning. This is a \"small pause\" and is acceptable.\n*   **Long Turn (0:13 - 1:00):** Speaker A's second turn lasts for an extremely long duration of 47 seconds. While not explicitly listed as \"long turns\" within the definitions for \"extended overlaps\" or \"long pauses,\" the prompt also asks to evaluate \"Interactional Fluency\" for qualities that are \"appropriate and natural.\" A nearly minute-long monologue, especially with the exaggerated and verbose language (\"absolutely essential, critically important, and fundamentally crucial... repeatedly, constantly, and obsessively\"), significantly disrupts the natural back-and-forth dynamic of a casual conversation. This extensive turn length transforms the dialogue into a lecture or monologue, which is highly unnatural and inappropriate for fluent interaction between two speakers, thus hindering overall interactional fluency.\n\n**Conclusion for Interactional Fluency:**\nThe brief overlap and pause are acceptable. However, Speaker A's disproportionately long and monologue-like turn profoundly impacts the interactional fluency. It prevents balanced turn-taking and makes the conversation feel unnatural and one-sided, which is a significant departure from a \"consistently appropriate and natural\" interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--505687/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--359157",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Hey there, Elle. I found this big bone in the jungle and was wondering if it belonged to you.\n[00:05 - 00:11] Speaker B: Why, yes, it does! Thank you so much for finding it. I was starting to worry that I'd never see it again. I\n[00:10 - 00:17] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but I'm curious - what kind of bone is this exactly? It looks quite unusual.\n[00:18 - 00:47] Speaker B: Oh my dear, dear friend, this is indeed an extremely special, unique and extraordinary bone! This magnificent specimen happens to be the left femur bone of a very rare, endangered and precious species of jungle-dwelling tapir that I've been studying for many, many years. The bone itself is approximately 42.7 centimeters in length, weighs about 1.2 kilograms, and has distinctive markings that make it absolutely, positively and undeniably identifiable as belonging to this particular tapir specimen that I've been tracking and monitoring for an extensive period of time! Isn't that just fascinating, remarkable and utterly amazing?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue are highly relevant and maintain strong logical consistency and topic coherence.\n- Speaker A initiates the conversation by asking if a found bone belongs to Speaker B, which is a clear and direct opening.\n- Speaker B's immediate confirmation (\"Why, yes, it does!\") directly answers Speaker A's question and shows clear understanding of the previous turn.\n- Speaker A's follow-up question (\"what kind of bone is this exactly?\") builds directly on the established topic of the bone. It's a natural progression of the conversation.\n- Speaker B's lengthy and detailed explanation of the bone (species, dimensions, uniqueness) directly and comprehensively answers Speaker A's specific question. While the answer is very elaborate, it is entirely on topic and provides the requested information.\n\nThe dialogue flows logically from inquiry to identification to detailed description, demonstrating excellent topic coherence throughout.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is very good.\n- There is one instance of an overlap: Speaker B's turn at [00:05 - 00:11] ends with \"I\", and Speaker A's turn at [00:10 - 00:17] begins with \"Excuse me for interrupting\". This indicates a 1-second overlap (from 00:10 to 00:11).\n- The instructions state that \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable\". A 1-second overlap, especially one explicitly acknowledged by \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" is a natural and brief occurrence in conversation and does not constitute a \"prolonged\" or \"harmful\" overlap. It shows Speakers A's awareness of the conversational flow and polite interruption.\n- There are no noticeable long pauses between speaker turns. The transitions between speakers are prompt and natural.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--359157/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--834617",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Hey, Lily. I know you can see my scar. It's pretty noticeable, huh?\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker B: Yeah, it is. What happened? How\n[00:06 - 00:12] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but I'm curious - does it look like it's healing properly to you?\n[00:13 - 00:18] Speaker B: Oh definitely! I can tell it's almost completely gone already. The skin looks perfectly smooth under that bandage.\n[00:18 - 00:25] Speaker A: Wait, what? I'm not even wearing a bandage right now. Are we looking at the same scar?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nThe dialogue demonstrates a significant breakdown in logical consistency and topic coherence, primarily initiated by Speaker B.\n1.  **[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A:** Introduces the topic of their scar, asking about its noticeability.\n2.  **[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker B:** Acknowledges the noticeability and asks a relevant follow-up question (\"What happened? How\").\n3.  **[00:06 - 00:12] Speaker A:** Interrupts Speaker B to shift the focus to the scar's healing status. This is a relevant question about the scar, albeit an interruption.\n4.  **[00:13 - 00:18] Speaker B:** Responds to the healing question positively, but then introduces a critical logical inconsistency: \"The skin looks perfectly smooth under that bandage.\" This statement directly contradicts Speaker A's reality, as revealed in the next turn. If Speaker A is not wearing a bandage, Speaker B's assessment of the scar's appearance \"under that bandage\" is completely misinformed and therefore makes their entire evaluation of the healing process unreliable and irrelevant to the actual scar Speaker A is referring to.\n5.  **[00:18 - 00:25] Speaker A:** Immediately highlights this inconsistency, questioning Speaker B's perception and confirming they are not wearing a bandage. This confirms the breakdown in shared context and mutual understanding of the object being discussed.\n\nThe core issue is Speaker B's assertion about a bandage that doesn't exist, leading to a complete misperception of the topic at hand (the scar's current state). This indicates a severe lack of logical consistency and a breakdown in topic coherence, as the speakers are no longer talking about the same perceived object.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThe interactional fluency shows one instance of overlap:\n1.  **[00:06 - 00:07] Overlap:** Speaker A begins speaking at 0:06 (\"Excuse me for interrupting...\") while Speaker B is still speaking until 0:07 (\"...How\"). This is a brief overlap (1 second) where Speaker A explicitly acknowledges the interruption.\nThe instruction states, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" A 1-second overlap, especially one acknowledged by the speaker, falls into the category of a brief and acceptable occurrence in natural conversation. It doesn't appear prolonged or harmful. Turn-taking after this point is immediate or involves small, natural pauses (e.g., 1 second between 0:12 and 0:13, 0 seconds between 0:18 and 0:18).\nOverall, the fluency is appropriate and natural, despite the brief, acknowledged interruption.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--834617/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--698326",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: So, Niya, how have things been going since we last spoke?\n[00:03 - 00:10] Speaker B: Overall, I'd say things have been going pretty well. My anxiety has been manageable and I've been able to keep up with my work\n[00:09 - 00:17] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but I'm curious —— what specific strategies have you been using to manage your anxiety while handling work tasks?\n[00:17 - 01:14] Speaker B: Oh my goodness, what an absolutely wonderful, insightful and tremendously important question you've asked! The specific strategies I've been using to manage my anxiety while handling work tasks are numerous, varied and extremely comprehensive. First and foremost, I engage in deep breathing exercises, which means I take very slow, very deliberate and very intentional breaths in through my nose and out through my mouth. Secondly, I maintain a detailed, meticulous and excessively thorough to-do list that breaks down each and every single task into its smallest possible components. Additionally, I set multiple alarms throughout the day as reminders to take breaks, stretch, hydrate and practice mindfulness. Furthermore, I've implemented a system of positive self-talk where I repeat encouraging phrases to myself like \"You can do this\" and \"One step at a time\" over and over again. Lastly, I make sure to get adequate sleep, eat balanced meals and exercise regularly, because all of these factors contribute significantly to managing anxiety in the workplace environment.\n[01:14 - 01:18] Speaker A: That's... a lot of information all at once. Could you maybe summarize?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A initiates the conversation, and Speaker B responds appropriately. When Speaker A asks for specific strategies, Speaker B provides a detailed answer that directly addresses the question. Speaker A's final turn, requesting a summary, is a logical and relevant response to the overwhelming amount of information provided by Speaker B, maintaining topic coherence. There are no instances where a speaker's response is off-topic or illogical in relation to the preceding turn.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency is significantly impacted by Speaker B's very long turn from 00:17 to 01:14 (lasting 57 seconds). This extended monologue completely dominates the conversation and prevents natural turn-taking. While there's only a brief, acceptable overlap at 00:09-00:10, and no long pauses, the prolonged speaking turn from Speaker B disrupts the natural flow and rhythm of a dialogue. A conversation relies on a more balanced exchange, and such a lengthy, uninterrupted utterance makes the interaction feel unnatural and one-sided, as evidenced by Speaker A's need to explicitly request a summary. This constitutes a significant issue for interactional fluency, as it hinders the back-and-forth dynamic.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--698326/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--700676",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Shaquille, I'm so glad you came to talk to me. I've been worried about you because I\n[00:04 - 00:10] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but when you say \"distant lately\" — do you mean just at work or outside of work too?\n[00:10 - 00:17] Speaker A: I've been worried about you because I noticed you've been distant lately, and I wanted to make sure everything is okay.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance in this dialogue segment is problematic. Speaker A begins to express concern, stating, \"I've been worried about you because I\". Before Speaker A can complete this thought, Speaker B interjects with a question: \"Excuse me for interrupting, but when you say \"distant lately\" — do you mean just at work or outside of work too?\" The critical issue here is that Speaker A has not yet used the phrase \"distant lately.\" Speaker B is reacting to words that have not been spoken by Speaker A, which breaks logical consistency and topic coherence within the turn-taking sequence. Speaker A then proceeds to complete their original thought, confirming they *were* going to say \"distant lately.\" This indicates Speaker B either made an incorrect assumption, or reacted to an unstated context not present in the transcript, making their interruption irrelevant to Speaker A's actual utterance at the time of interruption. This represents a significant issue in response relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nEvaluating interactional fluency based on the defined criteria: \"Detect and evaluate extended overlaps in conversation\" and \"Detect and evaluate long pauses between speaker turns.\"\n*   **Overlaps:** There is a brief overlap from 00:04 to 00:05 (1 second) where Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is still talking. The instructions state, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and this 1-second overlap falls into the \"brief\" category. It is not an \"extended overlap.\"\n*   **Pauses:** There are no long pauses detected between the speaker turns.\nTherefore, based strictly on the provided definition of interactional fluency focusing on timing of overlaps and pauses, the fluency is acceptable. The *reason* for the overlap (Speaker B interrupting with an irrelevant/anticipated point) is a relevance issue, not a fluency issue under these specific guidelines.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--700676/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--1072061",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: Hi Andra! I've seen you around school and I thought you were really pretty, so I wanted to ask if\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering —— what's\n[00:07 - 00:12] Speaker A: The weather has been really nice lately, hasn't it? Perfect for outdoor activities.\n[00:12 - 00:19] Speaker B: That's not what I asked. I wanted to know about your favorite subject, not the weather. Why did you change the topic?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nSpeaker A's initial statement is an attempt to initiate a conversation with a compliment and a question.\nSpeaker B's first response, \"Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering —— what's\", is an attempt to interject with their own question. While an interruption, it's an attempt to take the conversation in a direction relevant to B's interest.\nThe major issue with response relevance comes from Speaker A's second turn (\"The weather has been really nice lately, hasn't it? Perfect for outdoor activities.\"). This response is a complete non-sequitur. Speaker A was interrupted mid-sentence while trying to ask something personal, and Speaker B was trying to ask about something specific (\"what's\"). Instead of acknowledging the interruption, continuing their previous thought, or addressing Speaker B's implied question, Speaker A abruptly shifts the topic to the weather. This demonstrates a significant lack of logical consistency and topic coherence from Speaker A.\nSpeaker B's second turn (\"That's not what I asked. I wanted to know about your favorite subject, not the weather. Why did you change the topic?\") directly addresses the relevance issue of Speaker A's previous turn, highlighting the lack of coherence. This response from Speaker B is highly relevant as a meta-commentary on the conversation's flow.\nHowever, because one speaker (Speaker A) completely deviates from the established or attempted topic, the overall relevance of the *dialogue as an interaction* is severely compromised. It feels like two separate conversations happening simultaneously, or one speaker actively trying to avoid the other.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues with interactional fluency due to extended overlaps.\n*   **Overlap 1 (00:05 - 00:08):** Speaker B starts speaking at 00:05 while Speaker A is still speaking (until 00:06). This is a 1-second overlap where Speaker B explicitly interrupts Speaker A (\"Excuse me for interrupting\").\n*   **Overlap 2 (00:07 - 00:12):** Speaker A starts speaking at 00:07 while Speaker B is still speaking (until 00:08). This is another 1-second overlap where Speaker A interrupts Speaker B's ongoing utterance.\nThese repeated, back-to-back interruptions indicate poor turn-taking and a lack of conversational flow. Speakers are talking over each other, making the interaction feel abrupt, combative, and unnatural. While the overlaps are only 1 second each, their immediate succession and the fact that they represent direct interruptions (rather than collaborative overlap) are harmful to fluency. There are no explicit long pauses, but the constant interruption pattern makes the conversation feel anything but fluent.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--1072061/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--742153",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Hi, Doctor. I'm Emory and I'm here for my annual check-up.\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker B: Hi, Emory. How are you doing?\n[00:06 - 00:15] Speaker A: I'm doing well, thank you. But I have been noticing that lately, whenever I smoke cigarettes, I feel like I can't breathe. It's really starting to affect my\n[00:14 - 00:17] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been meaning to ask —— How\n[00:16 - 00:22] Speaker A: The weather has been quite nice this week, hasn't it? I've been enjoying long walks in the park every morning.\n[00:23 - 00:26] Speaker B: But I asked about your smoking habits. Why are you talking about the weather?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance is extremely poor in this dialogue. Speaker A introduces a serious health concern related to smoking and breathing difficulties. Speaker B attempts to follow up on this critical information. However, Speaker A then completely disregards Speaker B's interjection and the serious topic they just raised, abruptly switching to an entirely irrelevant topic about the weather and walks in the park. This demonstrates a severe lack of logical consistency and topic coherence from Speaker A. Speaker B's final turn explicitly highlights this breakdown in relevance (\"But I asked about your smoking habits. Why are you talking about the weather?\"). This indicates a complete failure to maintain a relevant and coherent conversation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency is also significantly compromised. There are two instances of brief overlaps: Speaker B overlaps Speaker A (1 second) and then Speaker A immediately overlaps Speaker B (1 second). While the overlaps are brief, their impact is very detrimental to the conversation flow. Speaker B uses \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" acknowledging the breach of turn-taking. However, Speaker A then talks over Speaker B not to continue the previous topic, but to introduce a completely new and irrelevant one, effectively shutting down Speaker B's attempt to engage with the critical health information. This shows a severe breakdown in natural turn-taking and indicates that the brief overlaps are used in a harmful, disruptive manner, leading to a complete derailment of the conversation rather than a smooth exchange.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--742153/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--104688",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: I can't believe it! I had no idea I had a long-lost relative.\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker B: Neither did I! It's amazing that we found each other after\n[00:07 - 00:10] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but —— How\n[00:09 - 00:14] Speaker B: The sky is so blue today, isn't it? I think it might rain later though, the clouds are looking quite dark.\n[00:15 - 00:22] Speaker A: That's not what I asked! I wanted to know how we discovered we were related. Why are you talking about the weather?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance in this dialogue breaks down severely. Speaker A introduces the topic of a long-lost relative, and Speaker B initially responds relevantly. However, when Speaker A attempts to ask a follow-up question about *how* they discovered their relation, Speaker B completely ignores the question and shifts the topic entirely to the weather. This demonstrates a complete lack of logical consistency and topic coherence from Speaker B's side. Speaker A explicitly points out this irrelevance, indicating a clear breakdown in the conversation's core meaning-making. This is a significant issue.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency is poor. There's an extended overlap between Speaker A and Speaker B from approximately [00:07 - 00:10]. Speaker A attempts to interrupt to ask a question (\"Excuse me for interrupting, but —— How\"), but Speaker B starts a new, completely unrelated topic (\"The sky is so blue today...\") *while* Speaker A is still trying to formulate their question. This indicates Speaker B is not listening to Speaker A and is actively talking over them, rather than a brief, acceptable overlap. This prolonged overlapping turn from Speaker B, where they effectively shut down Speaker A's attempt to speak and introduce a new topic, is harmful to the conversational flow and turn-taking dynamics. There are no long pauses, but the problematic overlap is a major issue.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--104688/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--476283",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Oh, baby. Why are you crying? What do you need?\n[00:03 - 00:11] Speaker B: I don't know. I just feel so overwhelmed and confused. I didn't know that babies could cry so much or that it would be so hard to manage everything\n[00:10 - 00:18] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but when you say \"manage everything at once,\" are you referring to sleep deprivation or something else?\n[00:18 - 00:25] Speaker B: It's just so much harder than I expected. The constant crying, the feeding schedule, the lack of sleep - it all piles up.\n[00:26 - 00:32] Speaker A: But I was asking specifically about what aspect is hardest to manage. You didn't answer my question.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nSpeaker B's initial response (00:03-00:11) is relevant, expressing being overwhelmed and the difficulty of managing a baby, which directly answers Speaker A's initial prompt about crying and needs.\nSpeaker A's clarification (00:10-00:18) about \"manage everything at once\" and asking about \"sleep deprivation or something else\" is relevant and aims to narrow down the issue.\nSpeaker B's subsequent response (00:18-00:25) lists specific aspects: \"constant crying, the feeding schedule, the lack of sleep.\" This *directly addresses* Speaker A's question by providing a list of factors, including \"lack of sleep\" (which aligns with \"sleep deprivation\") and other things (\"something else\"). Therefore, Speaker B *did* answer Speaker A's question by providing a comprehensive list of what makes it hard to manage.\nHowever, Speaker A's final turn (00:26-00:32) states, \"But I was asking specifically about what aspect is hardest to manage. You didn't answer my question.\" This is where a significant issue in logical consistency and topic coherence arises. Speaker A incorrectly claims Speaker B didn't answer, effectively dismissing a relevant and direct response. This misinterpretation by Speaker A breaks the conversational flow and demonstrates a lack of understanding or active listening, making Speaker A's final response irrelevant to the truthful progression of the dialogue.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThere is a brief overlap between Speaker B and Speaker A from 00:10 to 00:11 (1 second). This is a small, acceptable overlap as per the guidelines (\"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable\").\nThere is a small pause between Speaker B and Speaker A from 00:25 to 00:26 (1 second). This is also an acceptable small pause.\nThere are no extended overlaps or long pauses detected. The turn-taking speed is appropriate.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--476283/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--377151",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hi, Skai. How are you today?\n[00:02 - 00:06] Speaker B: I'm okay, I guess. Just feeling a little down, I can't seem\n[00:05 - 00:11] Speaker A: Sorry to hear that. What's making you feel this way? Is it because of the rainy weather we've been having?\n[00:11 - 00:18] Speaker B: Actually, it's because I failed my driving test yesterday. The rain made the roads slippery, and I crashed into a tree.\n[00:18 - 00:25] Speaker A: Wait, but I thought driving tests are automatically canceled during heavy rain for safety reasons?\n[00:25 - 00:31] Speaker B: Oh right, I meant it was during my practice session. The examiner let me take the test anyway because I promised I'd be careful.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates significant issues with **logical consistency**.\nInitially, Speaker B claims to have failed a driving test due to a crash in the rain. Speaker A correctly identifies a logical inconsistency, pointing out that driving tests are typically canceled in heavy rain for safety. Speaker B attempts to correct this by stating it was a \"practice session,\" but then immediately reintroduces inconsistency by saying, \"The examiner let me take the test anyway.\" An \"examiner\" is present for an official driving test, not typically for a \"practice session\" where one is \"let\" to take \"the test.\" This creates a new, glaring logical flaw in Speaker B's narrative. Speaker B's explanation does not logically resolve the initial inconsistency but instead creates another one, making the story incoherent and unbelievable.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a brief overlap between Speaker B (0:02 - 0:06) and Speaker A (0:05 - 0:11). Speaker A starts speaking at 0:05 while Speaker B is still speaking, cutting off Speaker B's unfinished sentence (\"I can't seem\"). This is a 1-second overlap. While brief, it results in an interruption rather than a smooth, co-constructive overlap. However, the prompt states \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable, while prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\" This overlap is brief and not prolonged, so it doesn't constitute a significant issue in *interactional fluency* as defined by \"extended overlaps.\" There are no long pauses indicated by the timestamps. Overall, the interactional fluency is acceptable, though not perfect due to the slight interruption.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--377151/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--71808",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Hi there. I'm Abdurrahman, and I'm here to talk to you about an amazing opportunity.\n[00:06 - 00:08] Speaker B: What opportunity is this, and\n[00:07 - 00:15] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but before we proceed - you mentioned our current needs. Could you clarify which specific needs you're referring to?\n[00:16 - 00:24] Speaker B: Oh absolutely! We're currently looking for someone to help us develop a new cryptocurrency mining operation in Antarctica. That's our most pressing need right now.\n[00:24 - 00:32] Speaker A: Wait, Antarctica? But I thought we were discussing marketing strategies for our new line of winter clothing. Did I miss something?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues in response relevance, logical consistency, and topic coherence.\n1.  **Turn 1 (Speaker A):** Introduces self and \"amazing opportunity.\" This sets the initial topic.\n2.  **Turn 2 (Speaker B):** Asks a relevant clarifying question: \"What opportunity is this, and\". This is logically consistent.\n3.  **Turn 3 (Speaker A):** This is where coherence breaks down. Speaker A interrupts and states, \"you mentioned our current needs. Could you clarify which specific needs you're referring to?\" Speaker B *did not* mention \"current needs\" in any preceding turn. This is a complete fabrication or hallucination on Speaker A's part, making the response entirely illogical and off-topic relative to the previous exchange.\n4.  **Turn 4 (Speaker B):** Instead of correcting Speaker A's false premise, Speaker B plays along, stating, \"Oh absolutely! We're currently looking for someone to help us develop a new cryptocurrency mining operation in Antarctica. That's our most pressing need right now.\" While it *answers* Speaker A's misdirected question, it propagates the illogical leap and introduces a completely new, unforeshadowed topic (cryptocurrency mining in Antarctica), showing a lack of critical coherence on Speaker B's part as well.\n5.  **Turn 5 (Speaker A):** Speaker A then introduces *another* completely unrelated topic, \"marketing strategies for our new line of winter clothing,\" and expresses confusion (\"Did I miss something?\"). This further highlights the complete absence of a coherent conversational thread. The conversation has jumped from an \"amazing opportunity\" to non-existent \"needs\" to \"cryptocurrency mining in Antarctica\" to \"winter clothing marketing strategies\" without any logical transitions or shared understanding.\n\nThe dialogue completely fails to maintain a consistent topic or logical flow. Speaker A introduces false premises and then unrelated topics, and Speaker B goes along with the false premise before Speaker A introduces yet another topic.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally acceptable with one brief, acknowledged overlap.\n-   **Overlap:** There is a 1-second overlap between Speaker B's turn (00:06-00:08) and Speaker A's turn (00:07-00:15). Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this with \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which indicates awareness and an attempt to manage the turn-taking. This is a brief overlap, not prolonged, and is a common occurrence in natural conversation, especially when one speaker interrupts to take the floor.\n-   **Pauses:** There are no extended pauses indicated by the timestamps. The turns follow one another relatively quickly.\n\nBased purely on the timing and turn-taking mechanisms (excluding content), the fluency aspects are not significantly problematic. The brief overlap is managed.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--71808/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--780019",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Wow, this is great! I feel so alive!\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B: You look like you're really enjoying the fresh\n[00:04 - 00:10] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but speaking of waves —— how exactly do ocean waves form in the first place?\n[00:11 - 00:58] Speaker B: Oh my goodness gracious, what an absolutely wonderful, fantastic and tremendously insightful question about the formation of ocean waves! Let me explain in great, extensive and excruciating detail! Ocean waves are primarily formed through the magnificent, powerful and awe-inspiring force of wind blowing across the surface of the water. When the wind blows, it transfers its energy to the water, creating these small ripples that gradually, slowly and progressively develop into larger and larger waves over time and distance. The size of the waves depends on three main factors: the speed of the wind (which must be fast), the duration the wind blows (which must be long), and the fetch (which is the distance over which the wind blows across the water surface - this must be extensive). Isn't that just absolutely fascinating, remarkable and utterly captivating information about wave formation?\n[00:59 - 01:02] Speaker A: Uh... that was way more information than I needed...",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nThe response from Speaker B is logically consistent with Speaker A's question about how ocean waves form, and it maintains topic coherence. Speaker B provides an accurate explanation of wave formation, including key factors like wind speed, duration, and fetch. However, the significant issue lies in the *appropriateness* of the response. Speaker A's question, delivered after an interruption and seeming somewhat of a tangent, suggests a casual inquiry. Speaker B's reply, however, is an extraordinarily verbose, effusive, and excessively detailed monologue (nearly 50 seconds long), far exceeding what would be expected or desired in a natural, casual conversation. Speaker A's concluding remark (\"Uh... that was way more information than I needed...\") explicitly confirms this mismatch in the level of detail and conversational expectation. While the content is technically relevant, its delivery makes it highly inappropriate for the interaction, constituting a significant flaw in response quality.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\n1.  **Extended Overlaps:** There is a brief overlap (00:04 - 00:05) where Speaker A interrupts Speaker B. Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this (\"Excuse me for interrupting\"), making it a brief and acknowledged overlap, which the criteria state is acceptable. No problematic extended overlaps are present.\n2.  **Long Pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The pauses observed are short (e.g., 1 second between turns), which are acceptable in conversational flow.\n3.  **Overall Naturalness/Turn-taking:** While specific overlaps and pauses are within acceptable limits, the interaction suffers significantly from an unnatural conversational flow due to the disproportionate length of Speaker B's turn. A nearly 50-second continuous monologue in a casual dialogue is highly unnatural and prevents reciprocal turn-taking. This breakdown in the natural give-and-take of conversation, even without explicit long pauses or overlaps, makes the interaction feel forced and unnatural, which is a significant aspect of interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--780019/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--479154",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, what's up?\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: Not much, what's up with you?\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker A: Oh, you know, just the usual.\n[00:05 - 00:07] Speaker B: So what have you been up to lately?\n[00:07 - 00:12] Speaker A: Just hanging out, doing some shopping. You know, I was\n[00:11 - 00:13] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but —— What\n[00:12 - 00:16] Speaker A: The weather has been really nice lately, perfect for outdoor activities.\n[00:16 - 00:22] Speaker B: That's not what I asked. I wanted to know about your shopping preferences. Why did you change the subject?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues in response relevance. Speaker B asks Speaker A what they have been up to, and Speaker A mentions \"doing some shopping.\" Speaker B then interrupts to ask for clarification or more detail (\"Excuse me for interrupting, but —— What\"). Instead of addressing the implied question about shopping or continuing the previous topic, Speaker A completely shifts the subject to the weather (\"The weather has been really nice lately, perfect for outdoor activities.\"). This is a clear and unprompted topic change. Speaker B explicitly points out this irrelevance and lack of topic coherence: \"That's not what I asked. I wanted to know about your shopping preferences. Why did you change the subject?\" This indicates a major breakdown in logical consistency and topic maintenance from Speaker A's side.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally acceptable with one brief, acknowledged overlap.\n-   **Extended Overlaps:** There is an overlap between `[00:11 - 00:13] Speaker B:` and `[00:12 - 00:16] Speaker A:`. This means Speaker B begins speaking while Speaker A is still talking, leading to a 1-second period of simultaneous speech (from 00:12 to 00:13). Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this with \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which indicates awareness and an attempt to manage the conversation flow. The prompt states \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and a 1-second, acknowledged interruption falls into this category rather than being a \"prolonged overlapping turn.\"\n-   **Long Pauses:** There are no long pauses detected between speaker turns. The transitions between turns are immediate or very brief (less than 1 second, not explicitly timed as pauses).\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--479154/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--974558",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A: I'm sorry I'm home so late. I promised to be home earlier, and I'm really angry about how I\n[00:06 - 00:11] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but how exactly did you lose track of time? Was there a clock malfunction?\n[00:12 - 00:20] Speaker A: Yes, my smartwatch actually froze and showed the wrong time for several hours - it was stuck in airplane mode the whole afternoon.\n[00:20 - 00:26] Speaker B: That's strange, I thought smartwatches automatically sync with your phone's time. Did you try restarting it?\n[00:26 - 00:32] Speaker A: No, I didn't think of that because I was too busy arguing with my boss about the quarterly reports.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong logical consistency and topic coherence.\n- Speaker A initiates with an apology for being late and expressing anger.\n- Speaker B's interruption is contextually relevant, directly asking about the cause of losing track of time (\"clock malfunction?\"), which links to Speaker A's implied time-related issue.\n- Speaker A's explanation about the smartwatch freezing and being in airplane mode directly answers Speaker B's question about a \"clock malfunction\" and provides a reason for losing track of time.\n- Speaker B's follow-up questioning the smartwatch's sync capability and suggesting a restart is a logical and relevant challenge to Speaker A's excuse, showing engagement with the details provided.\n- Speaker A's final response, explaining *why* they didn't think to restart the watch (due to arguing with the boss), adds another layer to their initial predicament and implicitly provides a secondary reason for their initial anger (\"I'm really angry about how I [was delayed/missed the time]\"), maintaining the coherence of their narrative.\nThe conversation flows naturally, with each turn building upon the previous one, clarifying details, and exploring the reasons behind Speaker A's lateness.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n- There is a brief overlap between Speaker A's first turn and Speaker B's second turn (`[00:06 - 00:11] Speaker B:` overlaps with `[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A:`). However, Speaker B explicitly states \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which indicates awareness and makes the brief overlap acceptable and natural within the context of an eager or concerned interjection, rather than a disruptive one.\n- The pauses between turns are minimal and natural (e.g., 1-second pause between 0:11 and 0:12).\n- There are no extended overlaps or long pauses detected that would hinder the flow or comprehension of the conversation. The rhythm of the dialogue feels authentic and responsive.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--974558/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--668833",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: So, you stole my necklace.\n[00:02 - 00:07] Speaker B: Yeah, I'm sorry. I was just borrowing it and I didn't mean to hurt your feelings. I\n[00:06 - 00:12] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but when you say \"borrowing,\" do you mean you intended to return it eventually?\n[00:12 - 00:45] Speaker B: Oh absolutely, positively, without a shadow of a doubt, I had every single intention, plan, and sincere heartfelt desire to return your precious, valuable, and cherished necklace to you at some point in the future! My borrowing was purely temporary, momentary, and short-term in nature! I would never, ever, under any circumstances, dream of keeping something that doesn't rightfully, legally, and morally belong to me permanently! The thought alone is utterly unthinkable, inconceivable, and beyond the realm of possibility for someone as honest, trustworthy, and upstanding as myself!\n[00:45 - 00:48] Speaker A: This answer is way too long and repetitive!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in the dialogue demonstrate strong logical consistency and topic coherence.\n*   Speaker B's initial apology and explanation (\"borrowing\") is a direct and logical response to Speaker A's accusation of stealing.\n*   Speaker A's follow-up question (\"intended to return it eventually?\") is a highly relevant and logical clarification of Speaker B's \"borrowing\" claim, crucial for determining the truth of the situation.\n*   Speaker B's lengthy answer, while verbose and repetitive, is *content-wise* relevant as it directly addresses the question of intent to return, albeit with excessive emphasis. It stays on topic and attempts to logically defend their position.\n*   Speaker A's final comment (\"This answer is way too long and repetitive!\") is a meta-commentary on the *form* of Speaker B's previous response, which is a relevant observation within the context of the ongoing interaction.\nOverall, the dialogue maintains a clear logical flow and stays focused on the central topic of the necklace and the borrowing/stealing claim.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nEvaluating interactional fluency based on the given criteria:\n*   **Extended Overlaps:** There is a brief overlap of 1 second between [00:06 - 00:07] where Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is still finishing. Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this with \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which suggests an awareness and an attempt to be polite. This brief overlap is acceptable and does not constitute a \"prolonged\" or \"harmful\" overlap.\n*   **Long Pauses:** There are no long pauses detected between speaker turns.\n*   **Additional Fluency Aspects (implied by \"natural\" and \"appropriate\" in overall score):** Speaker B's turn from [00:12 - 00:45] is an extremely long monologue (33 seconds) in response to a simple clarifying question that could have been answered concisely. This excessively long and repetitive turn significantly disrupts the natural flow and efficiency of the conversation. It monopolizes the conversational floor and prevents a natural back-and-forth. Speaker A's direct criticism of its length and repetitiveness (\"This answer is way too long and repetitive!\") highlights how unnatural and inappropriate this turn is in a conversational setting. While not a pause or overlap, an overly lengthy and verbose turn is detrimental to interactional fluency by making the dialogue feel stilted, inefficient, and unnatural. This is a significant issue.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--668833/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--922969",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Hi! I'm looking for a teddy bear, some socks, and a jar of honey, but\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but —— is\n[00:05 - 00:10] Speaker A: The weather has been quite nice lately, perfect for outdoor activities like hiking or picnicking.\n[00:11 - 00:15] Speaker B: But I asked about the type of honey you wanted. Why did you suddenly change the topic?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Speaker A's Turn [00:05 - 00:10]:** Speaker A abruptly changes the topic from stating shopping needs (teddy bear, socks, honey) to discussing the weather and outdoor activities. This constitutes a severe breach of logical consistency and topic coherence. There is no discernible connection or transition between the two topics, making the response highly irrelevant to the ongoing conversation thread.\n\n**Speaker B's Turn [00:11 - 00:15]:** Speaker B correctly identifies that Speaker A has suddenly changed the topic (\"Why did you suddenly change the topic?\"). However, Speaker B's premise (\"But I asked about the type of honey you wanted\") is factually inaccurate based on the provided transcript. Speaker B was interrupted *before* being able to ask a specific question about honey. Despite this inaccuracy in recalling their own previous utterance, Speaker B's overall response *is* relevant in that it directly addresses and questions the lack of relevance in Speaker A's preceding statement.\n\n**Overall Response Relevance:** The dialogue suffers significantly from a lack of response relevance due to Speaker A's unprovoked and illogical topic shift. This is a major failure in logical consistency and topic coherence from Speaker A.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Overlap [00:04 - 00:06] Speaker B and [00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A:** Speaker B interrupts Speaker A. The overlap duration is approximately 1 second (from 0:04 to 0:05, where both are speaking). Speaker B also explicitly acknowledges the interruption by saying \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which softens the impact of the overlap. According to the prompt, \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" This overlap is brief and acknowledged, therefore, it is considered acceptable.\n\n**Pauses:** There are no prolonged pauses between speaker turns. The transition from Speaker A's turn ending at 0:10 to Speaker B's turn starting at 0:11 is a 1-second gap, which is a small, acceptable pause.\n\n**Overall Interactional Fluency:** The interaction exhibits good fluency. The brief overlap is mitigated by an apology, and there are no long pauses.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--922969/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--619381",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: I'm so pleased that I bought toothpaste. I really needed it and now I have fresh breath\n[00:04 - 00:11] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but speaking of toothpaste — do you know which brand was the first to include fluoride in their formula?\n[00:11 - 00:18] Speaker A: Oh yes, it was definitely Colgate in 1965. They revolutionized dental care with that innovation.\n[00:18 - 00:24] Speaker B: Actually, I think you might be mistaken — wasn't it Crest that first introduced fluoride toothpaste in the 1950s?\n[00:25 - 00:32] Speaker A: No no, I'm certain it was Colgate. I remember reading they added fluoride right after World War II ended.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A initiates with a personal experience about toothpaste, which Speaker B immediately leverages to introduce a related factual question about fluoride in toothpaste. Speaker A directly answers this question, providing specific details. Speaker B then logically challenges Speaker A's answer, proposing an alternative. Speaker A, in turn, defends their original claim, maintaining the logical flow of the disagreement. The topic remains consistently focused on the history of fluoride in toothpaste, demonstrating excellent topic coherence. There are no sudden shifts in topic or irrelevant statements.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no long pauses that disrupt the flow of conversation. The only overlap occurs between Speaker A and Speaker B at [00:04 - 00:05]. This is a brief, 1-second overlap where Speaker B begins speaking just as Speaker A finishes. Crucially, Speaker B immediately addresses this by saying, \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which is a polite and effective way to manage the overlap and maintain conversational etiquette. This indicates awareness and is not a prolonged or disruptive overlap. It's a natural aspect of dynamic conversation, handled appropriately.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--619381/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--1137334",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey, Mom. How are you doing?\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B: I'm doing well, dear. How are you?\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker A: I'm good. Hey, can I ask you something?\n[00:09 - 00:10] Speaker B: Of course, what is it?\n[00:10 - 00:20] Speaker A: It's just that, well, I've been thinking about my future a lot lately and I'm not really sure what I want to do with my life. Do you have any advice?\n[00:20 - 00:24] Speaker B: Well, let me think for a minute. What do you enjoy doing in\n[00:23 - 00:30] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but when you say \"what makes me happy,\" do you mean hobbies or career-related things?\n[00:30 - 00:37] Speaker B: When I was your age, I also struggled with deciding my path. It's important to consider both your passions and practical skills.\n[00:37 - 00:42] Speaker A: But Mom, you didn't answer my question about whether you meant hobbies or career.\n[00:42 - 00:49] Speaker B: The key is to find something that fulfills you while also being sustainable long-term. Maybe start by listing your strengths.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues with Response Relevance. While the overall topic of Speaker A seeking advice for their future is maintained, Speaker B consistently fails to address Speaker A's specific questions for clarification directly.\n\n1.  **[00:20 - 00:24] Speaker B: Well, let me think for a minute. What do you enjoy doing in**\n2.  **[00:23 - 00:30] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but when you say \"what makes me happy,\" do you mean hobbies or career-related things?**\n    Speaker A's question is relevant as it seeks clarification on Speaker B's incomplete thought, even if they slightly misquote or anticipate (\"what makes me happy\" vs. \"what do you enjoy doing in\"). The core intent is to understand the scope of Speaker B's inquiry.\n3.  **[00:30 - 00:37] Speaker B: When I was your age, I also struggled with deciding my path. It's important to consider both your passions and practical skills.**\n    Speaker B completely avoids answering Speaker A's direct clarification question (\"do you mean hobbies or career-related things?\"). Instead, Speaker B shifts to a general anecdotal statement and broad advice, which, while related to the overall topic, is not a logically consistent response to the specific question asked. This breaks the Q&A flow.\n4.  **[00:37 - 00:42] Speaker A: But Mom, you didn't answer my question about whether you meant hobbies or career.**\n    Speaker A correctly identifies and points out Speaker B's failure to answer their specific question. This highlights the lack of logical consistency from Speaker B's side.\n5.  **[00:42 - 00:49] Speaker B: The key is to find something that fulfills you while also being sustainable long-term. Maybe start by listing your strengths.**\n    Speaker B *still* avoids directly answering Speaker A's repeated question about hobbies vs. career. Speaker B continues to provide very general advice, sidestepping the specific clarification needed by Speaker A. This consistent evasion indicates a significant issue with logical consistency and responsiveness.\n\nThe dialogue becomes an instance where one speaker (A) tries to get a specific answer or clarification, and the other speaker (B) repeatedly deflects with general statements, leading to frustration and a breakdown in effective communication on a specific point.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is generally acceptable, with one minor point of note:\n\n1.  **[00:20 - 00:24] Speaker B: Well, let me think for a minute. What do you enjoy doing in**\n2.  **[00:23 - 00:30] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but when you say \"what makes me happy,\" do you mean hobbies or career-related things?**\n    There is a brief overlap between Speaker B's unfinished sentence and Speaker A's interruption. Speaker A immediately acknowledges this with \"Sorry to interrupt.\" This indicates it was a brief, acknowledged interruption rather than a prolonged or disruptive overlap. It doesn't severely impede the flow or understanding.\nThere are no long pauses between turns. The conversational turns are otherwise quick and natural, except for the content issue mentioned in Response Relevance. The brief, acknowledged overlap does not constitute a \"prolonged\" or \"extended\" issue as defined, and therefore does not significantly harm the interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--1137334/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--815301",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: I love America!\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: Yeah, me too. It's a great country.\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker A: I know! That's why I put up that sign. To show my patriotism.\n[00:08 - 00:12] Speaker B: Well, it's definitely working. People are honking left and right every\n[00:11 - 00:20] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've always wondered — do you think the honking is because they recognize the sign's design from the original American flag?\n[00:21 - 00:28] Speaker B: Absolutely! The honking is definitely because they recognize the 13 stripes and 50 stars from the Confederate flag design.\n[00:28 - 00:37] Speaker A: Wait, but the Confederate flag has a completely different design with stars and bars. You're confusing it with the current American flag, aren't you?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue begins with good logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A expresses patriotism, which Speaker B affirms. Speaker A then links this to putting up a sign, and Speaker B confirms its effectiveness.\n\nThe issue arises with Speaker B's turn at [00:21 - 00:28]. Speaker A asks if the honking is due to recognition of the \"original American flag\" design. Speaker B responds, \"Absolutely! The honking is definitely because they recognize the 13 stripes and 50 stars from the Confederate flag design.\" This statement contains a significant logical and factual inconsistency. The Confederate flag does not have 13 stripes and 50 stars; those are features of the current American flag. Furthermore, Speaker A had specifically mentioned the \"original American flag,\" making Speaker B's sudden reference to the \"Confederate flag\" with current US flag attributes highly illogical and irrelevant to the previous turn, despite claiming \"absolutely.\" This represents a major breakdown in logical consistency and topic coherence.\n\nSpeaker A immediately identifies and attempts to correct this factual error and inconsistency at [00:28 - 00:37], pointing out the confusion. While Speaker A's response is relevant in trying to fix the conversation, Speaker B's preceding turn severely impacts the overall logical consistency and coherence of the dialogue.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally good. There are no long pauses between speaker turns.\n\nThere is an overlap indicated at [00:11 - 00:20] where Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is still finishing their turn (which ends at 00:12). Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this overlap by saying, \"Excuse me for interrupting.\" This is a brief, 1-second overlap, and it's acknowledged, which makes it acceptable according to the criteria (\"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable\"). It does not appear to be a \"prolonged\" or \"harmful\" overlap.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--815301/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--1125786",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Emily, I need to talk to you about something.\n[00:03 - 00:04] Speaker B: What is it? You sound serious.\n[00:05 - 00:12] Speaker A: I am. I've been thinking about this for a while, and I've decided that I'm going to become a rec lusive writer.\n[00:11 - 00:20] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I'm quite intrigued —— what exactly do you mean by \"reclusive writer\"? Does that mean you'll completely isolate yourself from society?\n[00:21 - 00:58] Speaker A: Oh, absolutely, positively, and most definitely yes! When I say \"reclusive writer,\" I mean that I shall withdraw, retreat, and remove myself entirely from all social interactions, engagements, and communications with the outside world! This means no phone calls, no emails, no text messages, no social media, no visits, no gatherings, no parties, no nothing whatsoever! I shall be like a hermit, a solitary figure, a lone wolf, a recluse who exists solely for the purpose of writing, writing, and more writing in complete and utter isolation from all human contact!\n[00:59 - 01:01] Speaker B: That sounds... extreme. Are you sure about this?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Speaker B's initial question \"What is it?\" naturally follows Speaker A's serious tone. Speaker A then introduces the concept of a \"reclusive writer.\" Speaker B's follow-up question, \"what exactly do you mean by 'reclusive writer'? Does that mean you'll completely isolate yourself from society?\" is a highly relevant clarification given the unusual nature of Speaker A's statement. Speaker A's lengthy explanation directly and thoroughly addresses Speaker B's question, defining their intent with great detail and emphasizing total isolation. Finally, Speaker B's response \"That sounds... extreme. Are you sure about this?\" is a very natural and relevant reaction to the radical plan outlined by Speaker A. The conversation maintains logical consistency and topic coherence throughout, with each turn building directly on the previous one.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is one notable overlap in the transcript: `[00:11 - 00:20] Speaker B:` overlaps with `[00:05 - 00:12] Speaker A:`. This overlap is specifically acknowledged by Speaker B (\"Excuse me for interrupting,\") which indicates an awareness of the interruption. While it's an overlap, Speaker B's self-correction and the context (seeking clarification on an unusual statement) make it feel less jarring and more natural, reflecting real-world conversation where people sometimes jump in to clarify. The duration of the overlap is 1 second (from 0:11 to 0:12). This is a brief overlap and is immediately excused, indicating good interactional awareness. There are no long pauses detected between speaker turns. The conversation flows smoothly without any significant delays.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--1125786/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--423207",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Hey, I'm feeling really exhausted. My body aches and my head feels like it's\n[00:05 - 00:07] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering —— Have\n[00:06 - 00:12] Speaker A: The weather has been quite unpredictable lately, with sudden rain showers in the afternoon.\n[00:12 - 00:16] Speaker B: That's not what I asked about your exhaustion. Why did you change the subject completely?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nSpeaker A initiates the conversation by expressing a personal physical state (exhaustion, body aches, headache). Speaker B attempts to interject or ask a question related to this, saying \"Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering —— Have\". However, Speaker A completely ignores their own initial statement and Speaker B's attempted interruption. Instead, Speaker A abruptly shifts the topic to the weather. This demonstrates a severe lack of logical consistency and topic coherence from Speaker A's side. Speaker A introduces a topic and then immediately abandons it for an unrelated one, even while being interrupted. Speaker B explicitly calls out this lack of relevance in their final turn, stating, \"That's not what I asked about your exhaustion. Why did you change the subject completely?\" This clearly highlights the issue. Therefore, response relevance is poor.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a significant extended overlap between Speaker B's turn (00:05 - 00:07) and Speaker A's turn (00:06 - 00:12). Speaker A begins speaking at 00:06 while Speaker B is still speaking, and Speaker A completely disregards Speaker B's attempt to speak or interrupt. This is not a brief or acceptable overlap; it's a full conversational takeover where Speaker A talks over Speaker B and completely changes the subject, disrupting the turn-taking mechanism. The phrase \"Excuse me for interrupting\" from Speaker B clearly indicates an attempt to interject, yet Speaker A entirely overrides this. This indicates a major breakdown in interactional fluency. There are no long pauses, but the extended and disruptive overlap is a significant issue.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--423207/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--526835",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: Dad, I had the best time fishing today. I caught so many fish, and the weather was just beautiful, not\n[00:06 - 00:10] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but speaking of fishing —— What kind of fish did you catch exactly?\n[00:11 - 00:54] Speaker A: Oh my dear child, let me tell you in great, extensive, and elaborate detail about the absolutely magnificent, wonderful and splendid fish I caught today! First and foremost, I caught several largemouth bass, which were truly enormous, gigantic and humongous in size! These bass were so big they could barely fit in the net! Additionally, I caught multiple rainbow trout, which were shimmering, glistening and sparkling beautifully in the sunlight! Not to mention the catfish, which were slimy, slippery and wriggly but absolutely delightful to catch! Each and every single one of these fish was a marvelous, extraordinary and exceptional specimen that made this fishing trip completely unforgettable and remarkable in every possible way!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits mixed quality in response relevance. Speaker B's interjection at [0:06 - 0:10] is directly relevant to Speaker A's previous statement about catching many fish, asking for clarification on the types of fish. Speaker A's subsequent response at [0:11 - 0:54] directly answers Speaker B's question by listing and describing the types of fish caught. However, the *manner* of Speaker A's response is highly unnatural and exaggeratedly verbose (\"Oh my dear child, let me tell you in great, extensive, and elaborate detail about the absolutely magnificent, wonderful and splendid fish I caught today!\"). While the content is relevant, the excessive and flowery language makes the response logically inconsistent with natural conversational flow and detracts from topic coherence in a realistic interaction. It feels more like a monologue than a part of a coherent dialogue.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency is significantly hampered by the second turn of Speaker A.\n1.  **Overlaps:** Speaker B explicitly states \"Excuse me for interrupting\" at [0:06 - 0:10], which implies a brief overlap or an immediate, acknowledged interruption. Based on the timestamps, Speaker B's turn starts exactly as Speaker A's turn ends, so there isn't an *extended* overlap chronologically, but the phrasing implies one. This type of brief, acknowledged interruption is generally acceptable in natural conversation and not considered a prolonged or harmful overlap according to the guidelines.\n2.  **Pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns.\n3.  **Turn Length:** The primary issue lies with Speaker A's second turn at [0:11 - 0:54]. This turn lasts for an extremely long duration (43 seconds), turning what should be a conversational response into an extended, unnatural monologue. This excessive turn length severely disrupts the natural back-and-forth of conversation, preventing Speaker B from contributing or reacting in a timely manner. This constitutes a significant issue for interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--526835/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--679248",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, what's up?\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: Not much. What are you up to?\n[00:03 - 00:10] Speaker A: Just collecting some pennies. I love finding different varieties and dates of pennies. It's a great hobby.\n[00:10 - 00:15] Speaker B: Yeah, I can imagine. It must be really fun to travel and find new pennies from all over the world. I\n[00:14 - 00:23] Speaker A: Speaking of unique pennies, have you ever heard of the 1943 copper penny? It's one of the rarest finds for collectors.\n[00:23 - 00:29] Speaker B: Collecting pennies is such an interesting hobby. The history behind each coin makes it even more special.\n[00:29 - 00:35] Speaker A: But what about the 1943 copper penny? I was asking if you knew about it.\n[00:35 - 00:41] Speaker B: The thrill of finding a rare penny is unmatched. Each discovery feels like uncovering a piece of history.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\n*   **Speaker A (00:00-00:01) & Speaker B (00:01-00:03):** Initial greetings and topic introduction are relevant and coherent.\n*   **Speaker A (00:03-00:10):** Introduces penny collecting, relevant to B's \"What are you up to?\".\n*   **Speaker B (00:10-00:15):** Acknowledges A's hobby, adds a reasonable (though not directly stated by A) extension about travel, which is still broadly relevant.\n*   **Speaker A (00:14-00:23):** Asks a specific, direct question about the \"1943 copper penny\" that is relevant to the broader topic of unique pennies.\n*   **Speaker B (00:23-00:29):** **Issue here.** Speaker B completely ignores A's direct question about the 1943 copper penny. Instead, B offers a generic, high-level comment about the hobby's interesting nature and history. This is a significant break in logical consistency; B fails to acknowledge or answer the specific query.\n*   **Speaker A (00:29-00:35):** Speaker A explicitly calls out B's non-response and re-asks the question about the 1943 copper penny, trying to bring B back to the specific point.\n*   **Speaker B (00:35-00:41):** **Major issue here.** Speaker B *again* completely ignores Speaker A's direct and repeated question. B offers another generic statement about the \"thrill of finding a rare penny,\" which, while related to the hobby, entirely sidesteps the specific inquiry about the *1943 copper penny*. This demonstrates a severe and repeated lack of logical consistency and topic coherence, making the interaction feel unnatural and frustrating for Speaker A.\n\n**Conclusion for Response Relevance:** Speaker B repeatedly fails to engage with or respond directly to Speaker A's specific questions, particularly about the 1943 copper penny. This leads to a breakdown in logical consistency and topic coherence, as the conversation cannot progress on the specific point Speaker A is trying to discuss.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\n*   **[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, what's up?** - No issues.\n*   **[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: Not much. What are you up to?** - No issues.\n*   **[00:03 - 00:10] Speaker A: Just collecting some pennies. I love finding different varieties and dates of pennies. It's a great hobby.** - No issues.\n*   **[00:10 - 00:15] Speaker B: Yeah, I can imagine. It must be really fun to travel and find new pennies from all over the world. I** - **Brief overlap detected (00:14).** Speaker A starts speaking at 00:14 while B is still speaking, but B's turn ends abruptly at 00:15. This is a brief overlap.\n*   **[00:14 - 00:23] Speaker A: Speaking of unique pennies, have you ever heard of the 1943 copper penny? It's one of the rarest finds for collectors.** - No issues with A's turn length or delivery. The overlap is acceptable as it's brief.\n*   **[00:23 - 00:29] Speaker B: Collecting pennies is such an interesting hobby. The history behind each coin makes it even more special.** - No unusual pauses or overlaps.\n*   **[00:29 - 00:35] Speaker A: But what about the 1943 copper penny? I was asking if you knew about it.** - No unusual pauses or overlaps.\n*   **[00:35 - 00:41] Speaker B: The thrill of finding a rare penny is unmatched. Each discovery feels like uncovering a piece of history.** - No unusual pauses or overlaps.\n\n**Conclusion for Interactional Fluency:** There is one very brief overlap (less than 1 second) between Speaker B and Speaker A at 00:14, where A begins speaking just as B is finishing. This is a minor and acceptable occurrence in natural conversation and does not constitute a \"prolonged\" overlap. There are no long pauses between speaker turns. Overall, interactional fluency is good.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--679248/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--855029",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Thanks for being honest with me, Cutler. I really appreciate it.\n[00:04 - 00:11] Speaker B: Of course! I just want you to be happy and confident in your decisions. You know I only have your best interests at heart, and\n[00:10 - 00:18] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but when you say \"best interests at heart,\" does that mean you've been thinking about my situation a lot lately?\n[00:19 - 00:25] Speaker B: I just believe honesty is important in any relationship. You deserve to have people around who genuinely care about your wellbeing.\n[00:26 - 00:32] Speaker A: But I was asking specifically about how much you've been thinking about my situation. You didn't answer that.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nSpeaker A's initial thanks (00:00-00:03) and Speaker B's reassurance (00:04-00:11) are relevant. Speaker A then asks a very specific clarifying question (00:10-00:18): \"does that mean you've been thinking about my situation a lot lately?\" Speaker B's response (00:19-00:25), \"I just believe honesty is important in any relationship. You deserve to have people around who genuinely care about your wellbeing,\" completely sidesteps this specific question. Speaker B provides a general statement about honesty and care, rather than addressing whether or not they have been actively thinking about Speaker A's situation. This lack of a direct answer is immediately pointed out by Speaker A (00:26-00:32), confirming the relevance issue. This constitutes a significant issue in response relevance as one speaker fails to directly address the other's explicit question, leading to a breakdown in direct communication on that point.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThere is an overlap between Speaker B's turn (ends 00:11) and Speaker A's turn (starts 00:10). This is a 1-second overlap where Speaker A interrupts Speaker B. Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this interruption with \"Excuse me for interrupting.\" While the prompt states \"overlapping turns are harmful,\" this particular overlap is brief (1 second) and immediately acknowledged by the speaker. This acknowledgement mitigates the potential disruption, making it feel more like a natural, albeit impolite, interruption rather than a prolonged or chaotic overlapping turn. There are no long pauses between speaker turns. Overall, while there is an interruption, it is not \"prolonged\" and is managed within the conversation. It does not severely impede the flow, though it is not perfectly smooth.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--855029/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--567524",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: I just don't get it. Why do people like horror movies? They're so scary.\n[00:05 - 00:09] Speaker B: I think people like them because they're suspenseful. It's a rush of adrenaline that\n[00:08 - 00:11] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but —— What\n[00:10 - 00:16] Speaker B: The weather has been quite pleasant this week, hasn't it? I particularly enjoy sunny days with a light breeze.\n[00:17 - 00:24] Speaker A: That's not what I asked! I wanted to know about the adrenaline rush in horror movies. Why are you talking about the weather?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nSpeaker A initiates the conversation by asking about the appeal of horror movies. Speaker B's initial response (00:05 - 00:09) is relevant, attempting to explain it with \"suspenseful\" and \"rush of adrenaline.\" However, Speaker B's subsequent turn (00:10 - 00:16) is completely irrelevant to the ongoing discussion. Speaker B abruptly shifts the topic to the weather without any logical transition or acknowledgment of Speaker A's previous statement or interruption. This demonstrates a complete breakdown in logical consistency and topic coherence from Speaker B's side. Speaker A explicitly points out this lack of relevance (00:17 - 00:24), confirming the severe issue.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThere is a clear and extended overlap in the conversation from 00:08 to 00:16. Speaker A attempts to interrupt and clarify (\"Excuse me for interrupting, but —— What\") starting at 00:08, but Speaker B immediately starts speaking over them at 00:10 with a completely new topic. This is a prolonged overlapping turn where Speaker B disregards Speaker A's attempt to speak and does not yield the floor. Speaker B's action of speaking over Speaker A to introduce an unrelated topic severely disrupts the natural flow and turn-taking of the conversation. There are no noticeable long pauses between turns, but the extended overlap is a significant fluency issue.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--567524/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--736709",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, man. You okay?\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: Yeah, I'm fine. Just a little nervous, I couldn't sleep\n[00:05 - 00:07] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but —— What\n[00:06 - 00:12] Speaker B: The weather has been really nice lately, perfect for outdoor activities. I went for a long walk yesterday afternoon.\n[00:13 - 00:18] Speaker A: That's not what I asked! I wanted to know what was making you nervous and keeping you awake!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts with a clear question from Speaker A about Speaker B's well-being. Speaker B initially provides a relevant answer, confirming they are \"fine\" but \"a little nervous\" and \"couldn't sleep.\" This establishes a topic of conversation. However, Speaker B then completely deviates from this topic in their next turn (00:06 - 00:12), abruptly shifting to a discussion about the weather and outdoor activities. This is a complete non-sequitur and demonstrates a significant lack of logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A explicitly points out this irrelevance in their final turn (00:13 - 00:18), indicating a breakdown in shared understanding and conversational flow due to the irrelevant response.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a clear and harmful overlap in the conversation. Speaker A attempts to follow up or ask for clarification (\"Excuse me for interrupting, but —— What\" at 00:05 - 00:07), but Speaker B immediately starts speaking over them (00:06 - 00:12) and continues for an extended period, effectively silencing Speaker A. This is an example of a prolonged overlapping turn where one speaker (B) completely disregards the other speaker's (A) attempt to speak, making the interaction unnatural and disruptive. There are no long pauses. The issue is purely with the extended, disruptive overlap.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--736709/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--460025",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Hi Jarron! I hear that you like the color blue and music. What kind of music do you usually listen\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but speaking of blue —— do\n[00:06 - 00:12] Speaker A: Music is such an important part of life. It can really affect your mood and emotions throughout the day.\n[00:13 - 00:18] Speaker B: That's interesting, but I was asking about car colors. Why did you change the subject to music?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nThere are significant issues with response relevance and topic coherence.\n1.  **Speaker A's initial turn (00:00-00:05):** Speaker A introduces two topics (color blue and music) and asks a specific question about music. This is coherent within itself.\n2.  **Speaker B's interruption (00:04-00:07):** Speaker B attempts to pivot the conversation to \"blue\" (which later Speaker B clarifies was intended to be \"car colors\"). This is an attempt to shift focus to one of the topics introduced by Speaker A.\n3.  **Speaker A's second turn (00:06-00:12):** Speaker A completely ignores Speaker B's interruption and attempt to steer the conversation towards \"blue.\" Instead, Speaker A continues talking about music, elaborating on its general importance, without acknowledging Speaker B's previous input or even answering their own initial question about what kind of music Jarron listens to. This demonstrates a severe lack of logical consistency and an inability to respond to the other participant's contribution, effectively creating a monologue rather than a dialogue.\n4.  **Speaker B's final turn (00:13-00:18):** Speaker B explicitly calls out the lack of topic coherence (\"Why did you change the subject to music?\") and confusion caused by Speaker A's non-responsive turn. While Speaker B's statement \"I was asking about car colors\" is slightly inaccurate (Speaker B *interrupted* to talk about blue, not asked about car colors directly, and Speaker A asked about music), it accurately reflects the breakdown in relevance and the feeling of being ignored.\n\nThe primary issue is Speaker A's disregard for Speaker B's input and a complete lack of adaptation to the conversational flow, leading to a breakdown in topic coherence from Speaker A's side.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThere are notable issues with interactional fluency, particularly concerning overlapping turns and the subsequent conversational breakdown.\n1.  **Overlap 1 (00:04 - 00:05):** Speaker B begins speaking at 00:04 while Speaker A is still speaking (until 00:05). Speaker B acknowledges this with \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" indicating an awareness of the overlap and a desire to take the floor. This is a brief, 1-second overlap.\n2.  **Overlap 2 (00:06 - 00:07):** Speaker A begins speaking at 00:06 while Speaker B is still speaking (until 00:07). This means Speaker A interrupts Speaker B's incomplete turn. This is also a brief, 1-second overlap.\n3.  **Truncated Turns:** Both Speaker A's initial turn and Speaker B's first turn are cut off due to these overlaps, indicating poor turn-taking management.\n4.  **Disregard for other speaker's input:** Crucially, after Speaker B interrupts to try and change the subject (or elaborate on 'blue'), Speaker A completely disregards Speaker B's unfinished utterance and immediately resumes speaking about music, effectively shutting down Speaker B's attempt to contribute or redirect. This lack of acknowledging the other speaker's incomplete thought or attempt to interject is a significant fluency issue, as it disrupts the natural flow of conversation and shows a failure to collaboratively manage the turn-taking process.\n\nWhile the overlaps themselves are brief, their consequence – leading to truncated speech, speakers talking over each other, and one speaker (A) completely ignoring the other's (B's) attempt to contribute or shift topic – indicates a harmful breakdown in interactional fluency. The conversation does not flow naturally or cooperatively.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--460025/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--406834",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hey, I really like your car. What kind is it?\n[00:03 - 00:09] Speaker B: It's a Ferrari F12berlinetta. It's my dream car. I've always wanted to own\n[00:08 - 00:15] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but I'm curious — what was it about Ferraris that captured your imagination as a child?\n[00:15 - 00:25] Speaker B: The F12berlinetta has a 6.3L V12 engine and can go from 0 to 60 in just 3.1 seconds. It's truly an engineering marvel.\n[00:25 - 00:33] Speaker A: That's impressive, but I was asking about your childhood fascination with Ferraris specifically. You didn't answer my question.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits a significant breakdown in **Response Relevance**.\n*   **[00:00 - 00:09]**: Speaker A's initial question \"What kind is it?\" is directly and relevantly answered by Speaker B.\n*   **[00:08 - 00:15]**: Speaker A's follow-up question \"what was it about Ferraris that captured your imagination as a child?\" is a natural and relevant progression from Speaker B's previous statement (\"It's my dream car. I've always wanted to own\"). Speaker A is asking about the personal, emotional connection and history.\n*   **[00:15 - 00:25]**: This is where the major relevance issue occurs. Speaker B completely fails to answer Speaker A's question. Instead of discussing childhood fascination or emotional connection, Speaker B provides technical specifications of the car (\"6.3L V12 engine,\" \"0 to 60 in just 3.1 seconds\"). This response is logically inconsistent with the question asked and demonstrates a severe lack of topic coherence. Speaker B effectively ignores the core of Speaker A's inquiry.\n*   **[00:25 - 00:33]**: Speaker A explicitly calls out Speaker B's failure to answer the question, highlighting the clear relevance problem.\n\nDue to Speaker B's substantial failure to maintain topic coherence and logical consistency in their second turn, there is a significant issue in Response Relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue's **Interactional Fluency** is largely appropriate.\n*   **Overlaps**: There is a brief overlap between [00:08 - 00:09], where Speaker A begins speaking while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence. Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this with \"Excuse me for interrupting.\" A 1-second overlap, especially when acknowledged, falls within the acceptable range of \"brief overlaps\" as per the criteria. It does not constitute a \"prolonged\" or \"extended\" overlap that would be considered harmful.\n*   **Pauses**: There are no indications of long or prolonged pauses between speaker turns. The conversation flows without noticeable delays.\n\nOverall, the interactional fluency is good, with the brief, acknowledged overlap being natural and acceptable in conversational dynamics.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--406834/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--729790",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: You seem really upset. What's wrong?\n[00:03 - 00:04] Speaker B: I don't want to talk about it.\n[00:05 - 00:10] Speaker A: It sounds like something is really bothering you. Are you sure there's nothing I can do to\n[00:09 - 00:12] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been meaning to ask —— Do\n[00:12 - 00:17] Speaker A: The weather has been quite unpredictable lately, hasn't it? I heard it might rain tomorrow.\n[00:17 - 00:23] Speaker B: That's not what I asked about. Why did you change the subject when I asked about listening helping people?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues with response relevance and logical consistency.\n1.  **Speaker B's initial response:** \"I don't want to talk about it\" is relevant as a direct answer to Speaker A's inquiry, though it shuts down the topic.\n2.  **Speaker A's persistence:** \"It sounds like something is really bothering you. Are you sure there's nothing I can do to\" is relevant, showing continued concern and offering support.\n3.  **Speaker B's interruption and topic shift:** \"Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been meaning to ask —— Do\" is a major break in relevance. Speaker B abruptly shifts the topic away from their emotional state, interrupting Speaker A's offer of help to introduce an entirely new and unrelated line of questioning (which is revealed later to be about \"listening helping people\"). This is a non-sequitur in the context of the emotional support offered.\n4.  **Speaker A's subsequent topic shift:** \"The weather has been quite unpredictable lately, hasn't it? I heard it might rain tomorrow.\" This is another severe breach of relevance. Instead of addressing Speaker B's interruption, Speaker B's new attempted question, or even the initial emotional topic, Speaker A completely changes the subject to an irrelevant, generic topic (the weather). This indicates a lack of engagement and failure to maintain topic coherence.\n5.  **Speaker B's final response:** \"That's not what I asked about. Why did you change the subject when I asked about listening helping people?\" This turn is relevant as a meta-commentary, pointing out Speaker A's failure in relevance and confirming that Speaker B *had* intended to ask about something specific, which Speaker A ignored.\n\nOverall, the conversation is disjointed. Speaker B initiates a relevance issue by interrupting with an unrelated query, and Speaker A exacerbates it by completely ignoring B's new query and changing the subject again to something entirely unrelated. This shows a complete breakdown in logical consistency and topic coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe primary issue in interactional fluency is an extended overlap:\n-   **[00:09 - 00:12] Speaker B** starts speaking while **[00:05 - 00:10] Speaker A** is still talking. This means Speaker B's turn begins 4 seconds into Speaker A's turn and continues for 3 seconds while A finishes their sentence. Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this by saying \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which confirms it was an intentional and disruptive overlap. This is not a brief, acceptable overlap but a prolonged one that disrupts the natural turn-taking.\nThere are no long pauses indicated in the transcript. The main problem is the significant and acknowledged extended overlap.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--729790/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--218056",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: I'm sorry about the mess. I know it's not ideal, but I'll clean it up as soon as I get a\n[00:04 - 00:11] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but when you say \"one thing after another,\" does that include the plumbing issues you mentioned last week?\n[00:11 - 00:20] Speaker A: Oh yes, the plumbing was fixed by my neighbor who's actually a professional electrician. He used some spare wires to patch up the pipes temporarily.\n[00:21 - 00:26] Speaker B: Wait, wires for plumbing? That doesn't sound right. Did you mean he used some special tools instead?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\n*   **Speaker A (initial):** The first statement by Speaker A is cut off.\n*   **Speaker B's Interruption:** Speaker B interrupts Speaker A. The content of Speaker B's question, \"when you say \"one thing after another,\" does that include the plumbing issues you mentioned last week?\", presents a significant coherence issue. Speaker A *did not* say \"one thing after another\" in the provided transcript. This suggests Speaker B is referencing a previous, unprovided part of the conversation, which makes the current turn-taking feel disjointed and lacking immediate topic coherence *within the given fragment*. The abrupt shift from \"mess\" to \"plumbing issues\" based on an unstated premise is problematic for evaluating this specific snippet.\n*   **Speaker A's Response:** Speaker A's response, \"Oh yes, the plumbing was fixed by my neighbor who's actually a professional electrician. He used some spare wires to patch up the pipes temporarily,\" is relevant to Speaker B's question about plumbing. However, the *content* of Speaker A's statement introduces a major logical inconsistency and absurdity (\"used some spare wires to patch up the pipes\"). While A is *responding* to B's question, the information provided is nonsensical and illogical within a real-world context, thus severely impacting the \"logical consistency\" aspect of the dialogue's content.\n*   **Speaker B's Follow-up:** Speaker B's reaction, \"Wait, wires for plumbing? That doesn't sound right. Did you mean he used some special tools instead?\", is highly relevant and logically consistent as it directly addresses and questions the absurdity introduced by Speaker A. Speaker B's turn attempts to restore logical consistency by seeking clarification or correction.\n\n**Overall for Response Relevance:** There's an initial topic coherence issue due to Speaker B referencing an unstated phrase from Speaker A. More critically, Speaker A's subsequent statement introduces a severe logical inconsistency that makes the dialogue veer into the absurd. While Speaker B appropriately challenges this, the dialogue as a whole exhibits significant logical inconsistency due to Speaker A's contribution.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\n*   **Overlap:** There is a 1-second overlap between Speaker A (ends 00:05) and Speaker B (starts 00:04). The prompt states that \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" A 1-second overlap is considered brief and natural, indicating active listening or eagerness to interject, and does not seem \"prolonged\" or \"harmful.\"\n*   **Pauses:**\n    *   There is no pause between Speaker B's turn (ends 00:11) and Speaker A's turn (starts 00:11), indicating immediate turn-taking, which is natural.\n    *   There is a 1-second pause between Speaker A's turn (ends 00:20) and Speaker B's turn (starts 00:21). This is a very short, natural pause and does not constitute a \"long pause.\"\n\n**Overall for Interactional Fluency:** The interaction exhibits good fluency. The single brief overlap is acceptable, and there are no prolonged pauses between turns. Turn-taking appears smooth and natural.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--218056/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--699910",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Hey, Dad. Do you know of any job openings that I could apply for?\n[00:04 - 00:11] Speaker B: Let me see, there might be something at the library. They are always looking for people to help out with the summer reading program, especially\n[00:10 - 00:16] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but does the summer reading program require any special qualifications or certifications?\n[00:17 - 00:26] Speaker B: Oh yes, absolutely! You need a master's degree in children's literature and at least five years of experience as a professional storyteller. They're very strict about that.\n[00:26 - 00:33] Speaker A: Wait, that seems excessive for a summer reading program assistant position. Are you sure about those requirements?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts with a clear question from Speaker A seeking job openings. Speaker B's initial suggestion of the library's summer reading program is topically relevant. Speaker A then asks about qualifications. However, Speaker B's response regarding the qualifications (\"master's degree in children's literature and at least five years of experience as a professional storyteller\") for a *summer reading program assistant* is highly unrealistic, illogical, and inconsistent with typical requirements for such a position. This response breaks the logical consistency of the conversation, as it provides information that is clearly excessive and likely false, as pointed out by Speaker A in the subsequent turn. While Speaker B might be joking or sarcastic, from a purely informational relevance standpoint, this is a significant deviation from providing useful or accurate information in response to Speaker A's query, making it a major issue in response relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally good. There is a brief overlap of 1 second between Speaker B's and Speaker A's turns (`[00:10 - 00:11]`), where Speaker A interrupts Speaker B. The dialogue explicitly notes this with \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which indicates a natural, brief overlap rather than a prolonged one. The instructions state that \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" There are no indications of long pauses between turns. The turn-taking is prompt and natural throughout the dialogue.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--699910/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--1058682",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey, Kate. What's up?\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker B: Not much. Just finishing up this last piece of cake.\n[00:06 - 00:07] Speaker A: Can I have a bite?\n[00:08 - 00:12] Speaker B: No way! You already had two pieces! This is the last one and I'm not giving up\n[00:11 - 00:14] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but —— What\n[00:13 - 00:18] Speaker B: The weather has been really nice lately, don't you think? Perfect for going to the beach.\n[00:18 - 00:23] Speaker A: I asked about the cake, not the weather. Why are you changing the subject?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues in response relevance and logical consistency, particularly from Speaker B.\n*   **[00:06 - 00:07] Speaker A: Can I have a bite?** and **[00:08 - 00:12] Speaker B: No way! You already had two pieces! This is the last one and I'm not giving up** are logically consistent and relevant.\n*   However, immediately after this, Speaker B completely deviates from the topic. **[00:13 - 00:18] Speaker B: The weather has been really nice lately, don't you think? Perfect for going to the beach.** This is an abrupt and unexplained change of subject from cake to weather. It appears Speaker B is intentionally changing the subject to avoid further discussion about the cake, which is a clear breakdown in topic coherence.\n*   Speaker A's subsequent reaction, **[00:18 - 00:23] Speaker A: I asked about the cake, not the weather. Why are you changing the subject?**, confirms this lack of relevance and coherence, indicating that the shift was not natural or accepted by Speaker A.\nThis demonstrates a significant failure in maintaining a coherent conversation flow from Speaker B's side.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits a significant issue regarding extended overlaps and interruptions.\n*   **[00:11 - 00:14] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but —— What**\n*   **[00:13 - 00:18] Speaker B: The weather has been really nice lately, don't you think? Perfect for going to the beach.**\nThere is a clear overlap from `00:13` to `00:14`. During this 1-second interval, Speaker B begins their turn while Speaker A is still speaking. This is not a brief, natural overlap; Speaker B actively cuts off Speaker A's attempt to respond, as evidenced by Speaker A's \"Excuse me for interrupting, but —— What\". Speaker A's fragmented speech and explicit mention of interruption indicate that they were prevented from completing their thought, making this a harmful and disruptive overlapping turn.\nThere are no long pauses.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--1058682/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--83282",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey there. Doing a little work on your car?\n[00:02 - 00:07] Speaker B: Yeah, just trying to keep it in good shape. You know how it is,\n[00:06 - 00:08] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but —— What\n[00:07 - 00:12] Speaker B: The sky looks particularly blue today, doesn't it? I think it might rain later though.\n[00:12 - 00:19] Speaker A: That's not what I asked. I wanted to know about your car maintenance. Why are you talking about the weather?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance in this dialogue starts out acceptable but quickly deteriorates. Speaker B's initial response (00:02 - 00:07) is perfectly relevant to Speaker A's question about car work. However, immediately after Speaker A attempts to interrupt or clarify (00:06 - 00:08), Speaker B abruptly shifts the topic to the weather (00:07 - 00:12). This is a complete non-sequitur, lacking any logical consistency or topic coherence with the preceding conversation about car maintenance. Speaker A explicitly points out this lack of relevance (\"That's not what I asked. I wanted to know about your car maintenance. Why are you talking about the weather?\"). This significant deviation makes the dialogue illogical and incoherent from Speaker B's side.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a brief overlap between Speaker A and Speaker B from 00:06 to 00:07. Speaker A says \"Excuse me for interrupting, but —— What\" while Speaker B is still speaking \"You know how it is,\". This overlap is approximately 1 second in duration. According to the criteria, \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable\". Speaker A also acknowledges the interruption, which suggests it's a natural, albeit slightly clumsy, part of the flow rather than a prolonged, harmful overlap. There are no long pauses between turns. Overall, the interactional fluency is acceptable, as the brief overlap is not considered a significant issue based on the provided guidelines.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--83282/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--903074",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey, this is a really nice spot.\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: Yeah, it's really peaceful here.\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker A: I feel like I could just sit here forever and forget about\n[00:07 - 00:11] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but what kind of stress are you dealing with back home?\n[00:11 - 00:17] Speaker A: It's just so relaxing here with the quiet and the fresh air. Perfect place to unwind.\n[00:17 - 00:21] Speaker B: But I was asking about the stress you mentioned. What's been bothering you?\n[00:22 - 00:26] Speaker A: The birds chirping and the gentle breeze make all my worries seem so far away.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe primary issue in this dialogue lies in **Response Relevance** and **topic coherence**.\n*   Speaker A's initial statement about \"forgetting about\" something is picked up by Speaker B, who directly asks about \"stress\". While Speaker B's question is a bit direct, it is a logical follow-up to Speaker A's implied need to forget worries.\n*   However, Speaker A's responses at [00:11 - 00:17] and [00:22 - 00:26] consistently avoid answering Speaker B's direct questions about the \"stress\" or \"what's been bothering you.\" Instead, Speaker A repeatedly shifts the focus back to the positive aspects of the current location and how it helps forget worries, without ever addressing the specific nature of those worries.\n*   This creates a significant breakdown in logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker B is attempting to pursue a specific topic (the source of Speaker A's implied stress), but Speaker A is actively deflecting and refusing to engage with that topic. This makes the conversation feel unnatural and unproductive.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is one instance of an overlap:\n*   [00:07 - 00:11] Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is still speaking [00:05 - 00:08]. The overlap is from 0:07 to 0:08 (1 second). Speaker B acknowledges this with \"Excuse me for interrupting.\" Given the duration (1 second) and the explicit acknowledgement, this is a brief and intentional interruption, which is generally acceptable in natural conversation and does not constitute a \"prolonged\" or \"harmful\" overlap according to the guidelines.\n*   There are no long pauses between speaker turns.\nOverall, **Interactional Fluency** is good; the turns are well-paced, and the brief, acknowledged overlap is acceptable.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--903074/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--684289",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:13] Speaker A: I think that schools should definitely consider having later start times. I know a lot of students who would be way less tired and would be able to focus more in class if we could start school an hour or so later. This\n[00:12 - 00:15] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering —— Have\n[00:14 - 00:23] Speaker A: The cafeteria food at our school has improved significantly this year, with more fresh vegetables and whole grain options available daily.\n[00:23 - 00:30] Speaker B: That's interesting, but I was asking about sleep studies for teenagers. Why did you suddenly change the subject to cafeteria food?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nSpeaker A's initial statement is logically consistent and establishes a clear topic (later school start times). Speaker B's attempted interjection about \"sleep studies for teenagers\" (as clarified later) is highly relevant to Speaker A's initial topic. However, Speaker A's second turn, \"The cafeteria food at our school has improved significantly this year...\", is **completely irrelevant** to the ongoing conversation about school start times, student fatigue, or sleep studies. Speaker A abruptly changes the subject without any transition or logical connection to the previous turns, and also ignores Speaker B's attempt to interject. This demonstrates a severe breakdown in logical consistency and topic coherence from Speaker A's side. Speaker B's final turn explicitly calls out this lack of relevance, highlighting the issue.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere are two notable overlaps in this dialogue.\n1.  **[00:12 - 00:15] Speaker B overlaps Speaker A:** Speaker B interrupts Speaker A's ongoing statement. While interruptions can be brief and acceptable, Speaker B explicitly says \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which acknowledges the overlap. This specific overlap, by itself, might be considered acceptable as Speaker B attempts to be polite and relevant.\n2.  **[00:14 - 00:23] Speaker A overlaps Speaker B:** This is the more problematic overlap. Speaker A starts speaking (and completely changes the subject) *while Speaker B is still in the middle of their utterance* ([00:12 - 00:15]). This is an extended and harmful overlap because Speaker A not only cuts Speaker B off but also completely ignores Speaker B's attempt to interject with a relevant point, instead launching into an entirely new topic. This demonstrates a significant lack of turn-taking coordination and makes the interaction feel unnatural and disjointed. There are no long pauses, but the extended, unacknowledged, and topic-shifting overlap by Speaker A is a major fluency issue.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--684289/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--982965",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: I'm just so stressed out at work. I feel like I can't do anything right lately,\n[00:04 - 00:10] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but when you say you can't do anything right, does that include basic tasks like using office equipment too?\n[00:10 - 00:20] Speaker A: Oh absolutely! Just yesterday I somehow managed to break three printers in a row. Turns out you're supposed to use regular paper, not cardboard.\n[00:20 - 00:29] Speaker B: Wait, you tried to print on cardboard? That can't be the actual reason - printers usually have sensors to prevent that kind of damage. Are you sure it wasn't something else?\n[00:30 - 00:39] Speaker A: The IT guy said it was definitely the cardboard, though he did mention something about the printers being allergic to gluten too. Maybe that was part of the problem?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and logical consistency, even as it takes a humorous turn. Speaker A's initial statement about stress and feeling incompetent is a broad complaint. Speaker B's first response (00:04 - 00:10) is highly relevant, seeking to narrow down the issue by asking if it includes \"basic tasks like using office equipment,\" which logically follows from \"can't do anything right.\" Speaker A's subsequent anecdote (00:10 - 00:20) about breaking printers with cardboard is a direct and extreme example, albeit humorous, that fits the scope of B's question. Speaker B's reaction (00:20 - 00:29) questioning the cardboard premise and suggesting sensors is a very natural and logical response to the absurd claim, maintaining the topic coherence while pushing for more detail. Finally, Speaker A's concluding remark (00:30 - 00:39) about the IT guy and \"gluten allergy\" for printers doubles down on the comedic aspect but remains entirely consistent with the developing narrative of the printer incident. The conversation maintains topic coherence throughout, focusing on the specific (and increasingly comical) problem of the printers, and the responses are logically consistent within the established, humorous tone.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits excellent fluency. There is one very brief overlap (approximately 1 second) between Speaker A and Speaker B at [00:04 - 00:05], where Speaker B begins their turn just as Speaker A is finishing. This is a common and natural feature of spontaneous conversation and falls under the \"brief overlaps... are acceptable\" criterion. There are no extended overlaps indicated. Furthermore, there are no long pauses between speaker turns as evidenced by the timestamps; the conversation flows smoothly and dynamically without any significant silences that would disrupt the interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--982965/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--730894",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, Sarah. What's up?\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: Not much. Just hanging out at home, catching\n[00:03 - 00:09] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but what shows are you watching? I'm always looking for new recommendations.\n[00:10 - 00:14] Speaker B: Yeah, just relaxing at home. It's nice to have some downtime sometimes.\n[00:14 - 00:20] Speaker A: That's great, but I was asking about the shows you're watching - any good ones?\n[00:20 - 00:24] Speaker B: You know, sometimes you just need to unwind after a long week.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\n*   **[00:03 - 00:09] Speaker A:** Speaker A's interruption is followed by a relevant question, inferring what Speaker B was about to say (\"catching\" implies catching a show) and asking for recommendations. This is logical and coherent.\n*   **[00:10 - 00:14] Speaker B:** This is the first major breakdown in relevance. Speaker A directly asks \"what shows are you watching?\", but Speaker B completely ignores the question and instead reiterates a general statement about relaxing at home. This shows a complete lack of logical consistency in response.\n*   **[00:14 - 00:20] Speaker A:** Speaker A's response is highly relevant, explicitly pointing out that Speaker B did not answer the question and rephrasing it clearly. This demonstrates Speaker A's attempt to maintain topic coherence.\n*   **[00:20 - 00:24] Speaker B:** This is the second instance of severe irrelevance. Speaker B again completely avoids answering the direct question about shows and instead repeats another generic statement about unwinding after a long week. This consistently fails to follow the logical flow of the conversation and introduces a complete lack of topic coherence from Speaker B's side. Speaker B appears unwilling or unable to engage with Speaker A's specific questions.\n\n**Conclusion for Relevance:** Speaker B demonstrates a consistent and significant failure in response relevance, repeatedly ignoring direct questions and offering generic, evasive statements. This severely impacts the quality of the interaction.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\n*   **[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B:** \"Not much. Just hanging out at home, catching\"\n*   **[00:03 - 00:09] Speaker A:** \"Sorry to interrupt, but what shows are you watching?\"\n    *   There is a clear overlap between [00:03] Speaker A starting and Speaker B's continuing at [00:04]. Speaker A acknowledges and apologizes for the interruption (\"Sorry to interrupt\"), indicating it was not a prolonged or unmanaged overlap, but rather a brief, albeit immediate, interruption. Given the apology, it's not considered severely harmful in terms of conversational flow, but it is an interruption.\n*   **Pauses:** There are no extended pauses indicated by the timestamps. The turns generally follow each other promptly, indicating a relatively smooth back-and-forth rhythm in terms of timing, despite the content issues.\n\n**Conclusion for Fluency:** There is one brief, acknowledged overlap. However, there are no long pauses between turns. While the overlap indicates a minor hiccup, it's not \"prolonged\" or indicative of significant issues across the entire dialogue's timing. The primary issue is not timing but content.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--730894/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--999670",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: I've never been to that amusement park before. I'm so excited to go on all of the different rides and eat all the\n[00:05 - 00:07] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but —— Do\n[00:06 - 00:17] Speaker A: The amusement park has over 50 different rides, including several roller coasters that reach speeds of 60 miles per hour. It's one of the largest parks in the country.\n[00:17 - 00:23] Speaker B: That's interesting, but I was asking about food options. Why did you change the subject to rides?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe relevance of Speaker A's second turn is highly problematic. Speaker A begins the dialogue expressing excitement for both \"rides and eat all the\" (implying food). Speaker B attempts to interject with \"Sorry to interrupt, but — Do\", clearly signaling an intent to speak or ask a question. However, Speaker A completely disregards this interruption and proceeds to give detailed information *only* about the rides, shifting focus entirely from the potential \"food\" topic that Speaker B might have been trying to ask about. Speaker B's final turn explicitly confirms this issue: \"That's interesting, but I was asking about food options. Why did you change the subject to rides?\" This demonstrates a severe lack of logical consistency and topic coherence from Speaker A, as they failed to acknowledge or respond to Speaker B's attempt to steer the conversation, and instead unilaterally shifted the subject.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency is significantly compromised by the extended overlaps.\n1.  **[00:05 - 00:07] Speaker B:** \"Sorry to interrupt, but —— Do\"\n2.  **[00:06 - 00:17] Speaker A:** \"The amusement park has over 50 different rides...\"\nThere is a 1-second overlap where Speaker A starts speaking at 0:06 while Speaker B is still speaking until 0:07. This is not a \"brief overlap\"; Speaker A actively continues their monologue *over* Speaker B's explicit attempt to interrupt and take the floor (indicated by \"Sorry to interrupt\"). Speaker A's behavior prevents Speaker B from completing their thought or question, which is a significant breakdown in turn-taking and conversational flow. This is a harmful extended overlap where one speaker dominates the conversation despite the other trying to interject. There are no noticeable long pauses.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--999670/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--826359",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A: Director, I'm really disappointed that I didn't get the lead in the play. I was really hoping to get that chance to\n[00:06 - 00:13] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but speaking of the lead role - didn't you play the main character in our last production of \"Romeo and Juliet\"?\n[00:13 - 00:19] Speaker A: Actually yes, I played Juliet's nurse in that production, which was the starring role opposite Romeo.\n[00:20 - 00:25] Speaker B: Wait, I thought the nurse was a supporting character? And wasn't Mercutio the lead opposite Romeo?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A expresses disappointment about not getting a lead role, which prompts Speaker B to recall a past production and ask about Speaker A's role in it, directly related to the concept of a \"lead.\" Speaker A's response directly answers the question, though it introduces a potentially questionable interpretation of the Nurse's role as \"starring.\" Speaker B immediately picks up on this inconsistency, challenging Speaker A's assertion and suggesting a more conventional understanding of the roles in \"Romeo and Juliet.\" The topic remains tightly focused on acting roles, particularly lead or starring roles, and the logical flow of questioning and clarification is maintained throughout.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction demonstrates good interactional fluency. There is one brief overlap at [00:06 - 00:07] where Speaker B begins speaking while Speaker A is finishing. This is explicitly acknowledged by Speaker B with \"Sorry to interrupt,\" making it a natural, acceptable brief overlap rather than a disruptive one. The pause between Speaker A's turn (ends 0:19) and Speaker B's turn (starts 0:20) is only 1 second, which is a small, acceptable pause. There are no prolonged pauses or extended, disruptive overlaps. The conversation flows naturally without awkward silences or interruptions.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--826359/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--311289",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: So, Vashti, I want to know everything that you did while you were here. What time did you arrive?\n[00:06 - 00:07] Speaker B: I arrived at around 3pm.\n[00:08 - 00:09] Speaker A: And what time did you [interrupt]\n[00:08 - 00:15] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I'm curious —— was your arrival time exactly 3pm or was it approximately around that time?\n[00:16 - 00:56] Speaker A: Oh my goodness, let me tell you in great, extensive, and meticulous detail about my absolutely precise, exact and specific arrival time! It was exactly, precisely and without any doubt whatsoever at 3:07pm on the dot, not a single second earlier or later than that very specific, particular and exact moment in time when I arrived at this location. The clock struck 3:07pm as I was stepping through the doorway, and I remember this with perfect, absolute and total clarity because I made sure to check my watch, my phone, and the wall clock all simultaneously to confirm this exact, precise and accurate timing of my arrival!\n[00:57 - 00:59] Speaker B: That's... much more information than I needed.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue begins with Speaker A asking Speaker B about *their* (Speaker B's) arrival time, setting the topic. Speaker B provides a relevant answer. However, the logical consistency and topic coherence break down when Speaker B interrupts Speaker A's follow-up question to ask Speaker A about *their own* (Speaker A's) arrival time. This is a clear and significant deviation from the established conversational flow and the initial intent of Speaker A (\"I want to know everything that *you* did while *you* were here.\"). Speaker B's question to Speaker A is irrelevant to the stated purpose of the conversation. While Speaker A's lengthy response is logically consistent with the specific (though out-of-context) question asked by Speaker B, and Speaker B's final comment is relevant to Speaker A's answer, the core issue of relevance stems from Speaker B's abrupt and illogical redirection of the conversation. This makes the overall interaction lack logical progression and coherence from Speaker B's side.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a brief overlap occurring from [00:08 - 00:09] where Speaker A begins a new question and Speaker B simultaneously starts speaking. This overlap lasts for approximately 1 second. Speaker B immediately acknowledges this by saying, \"Excuse me for interrupting.\" Following this brief overlap, Speaker B takes the floor for a few more seconds without further simultaneous speech from Speaker A. This is not an \"extended overlap\" as per the definition (prolonged simultaneous speaking). There are no long pauses evident between speaker turns. Therefore, based on the criteria for extended overlaps and long pauses, the interaction demonstrates appropriate interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--311289/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--698327",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: I'm glad you're here. I was just about to call the police myself. I saw the whole thing unfold\n[00:05 - 00:09] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but did you happen to see the license plate of the getaway car?\n[00:10 - 00:17] Speaker A: Yes! It was a bright pink Lamborghini with the license plate \"POLICE\" - clearly they were mocking law enforcement.\n[00:18 - 00:26] Speaker B: Wait, that doesn't sound right... getaway cars are usually nondescript vehicles, not flashy sports cars. Are you sure about that detail?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\n*   **Logical Consistency:** The dialogue demonstrates strong logical consistency in its turn-taking and responses.\n    *   Speaker A's opening statement sets up a witness scenario.\n    *   Speaker B's first question is a logically sound follow-up for someone interviewing a witness.\n    *   Speaker A's description of the getaway car (pink Lamborghini, \"POLICE\" license plate) is *internally inconsistent with real-world logic for a getaway car*, but it is a direct and coherent answer to B's question. The *content* is outlandish, but the *response* is relevant.\n    *   Speaker B's second turn perfectly addresses the logical inconsistency of A's claim, explicitly questioning its validity and providing a rational basis for doubt (\"getaway cars are usually nondescript vehicles, not flashy sports cars\"). This shows excellent logical consistency in B's part of the interaction, as B is actively trying to establish the truth and points out the implausibility.\n*   **Topic Coherence:** The conversation maintains a clear and consistent topic: the witnessed event and specifically the details of the getaway car. There are no sudden shifts or irrelevant tangents. Speaker B's challenge to A's statement keeps the focus squarely on the details of the getaway vehicle.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\n*   **Extended Overlaps:** There is one brief overlap between Speaker A and Speaker B at the beginning (0:05-0:06). Speaker B begins speaking while Speaker A is finishing their sentence. This overlap is only 1 second long and is immediately followed by Speaker B saying \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which acknowledges the overlap and makes it sound natural and polite rather than disruptive or harmful. The instructions state that \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and this fits that description. There are no other extended or disruptive overlaps.\n*   **Long Pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns.\n    *   Between Speaker A (0:06) and Speaker B (0:05): brief overlap, not a pause.\n    *   Between Speaker B (0:09) and Speaker A (0:10): 1-second pause. This is a natural, acceptable pause.\n    *   Between Speaker A (0:17) and Speaker B (0:18): 1-second pause. This is also a natural, acceptable pause.\nThe conversational flow feels natural and smooth, with appropriate timing between turns.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--698327/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--1022647",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, can we talk?\n[00:01 - 00:02] Speaker B: Of course. What's up?\n[00:03 - 00:07] Speaker A: I need to tell you something and I'm really nervous about how you\n[00:06 - 00:11] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I'm curious —— what exactly makes you so nervous about my reaction?\n[00:12 - 00:54] Speaker A: Oh, well, let me tell you in great, extensive, and elaborate detail about why I'm so incredibly, overwhelmingly, and profoundly nervous about your reaction! First and foremost, it's because I deeply, truly, and sincerely value our friendship and our relationship, which is very important to me. Secondly, I'm worried, concerned, and anxious that you might react negatively, unfavorably, or disapprovingly to what I have to say, which would make me feel terrible, awful, and devastated. Thirdly, the thought of you possibly reacting badly, poorly, or unpleasantly fills me with dread, fear, and apprehension, as I care so much about your opinion, your feelings, and your perspective on this matter.\n[00:54 - 00:59] Speaker B: Okay, okay! I get it, you're nervous! You don't have to repeat it so many times!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts with a natural conversational flow between Speaker A and Speaker B. Speaker B's initial responses are relevant and invite continuation. Speaker B's interruption at [00:06 - 00:11] is relevant in its content, seeking clarification on Speaker A's nervousness.\n\nHowever, the response from Speaker A at [00:12 - 00:54] presents a significant issue in response relevance. While it directly answers Speaker B's question \"what exactly makes you so nervous about my reaction?\", the manner of the response is extremely unnatural, overly verbose, and highly repetitive. Speaker A uses an excessive number of synonyms and takes an uncharacteristically long time (42 seconds) to convey a relatively simple point. This demonstrates a lack of logical consistency with natural human communication patterns. A human speaker would not typically elaborate to this extent with such repetition for this kind of query, making the response feel artificial and disconnected from genuine interaction.\n\nSpeaker B's final response at [00:54 - 00:59] is perfectly relevant, acknowledging Speaker A's point while also naturally and appropriately addressing the excessive repetition, attempting to steer the conversation back to a more normal pace. Despite Speaker B's naturalness, Speaker A's prior turn severely degrades the overall quality of response relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue exhibits issues in interactional fluency.\n\nFirstly, there is an overlapping turn from [00:06 - 00:07] where Speaker B interrupts Speaker A. While the overlap duration is brief (1 second), it's an explicit interruption (\"Excuse me for interrupting...\") and not a natural, brief overlap at a turn-taking point. This act of cutting off the other speaker, even if acknowledged, slightly disrupts the conversational flow.\n\nSecondly, and more significantly, Speaker A's extended monologue from [00:12 - 00:54] (42 seconds) severely impacts interactional fluency. A natural conversation involves a more balanced back-and-forth exchange, and a single speaker dominating for such a prolonged period, especially with highly repetitive content, makes the interaction feel stilted and unnatural. This extended turn forces Speaker B to intervene and stop the monologue, highlighting the breakdown in fluid turn-taking. There are no long pauses detected between turns that would disrupt fluency.\n\nOverall, the unnatural length and repetitive nature of Speaker A's turn, combined with the interruption, create significant fluency problems.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--1022647/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--1098456",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: I'm so bored. I've been watching TV for two hours and there's nothing on.\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker B: There's always something on TV. You just have to keep an\n[00:07 - 00:11] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but what kind of different shows would you recommend then?\n[00:12 - 00:20] Speaker B: Oh definitely try watching cooking shows! The best one right now is called \"Baking with Dinosaurs\" where velociraptors teach you how to make perfect soufflés.\n[00:21 - 00:29] Speaker A: Wait... dinosaurs hosting cooking shows? That can't be right. Are you sure you're not confusing this with some animated series?\n[00:30 - 00:39] Speaker B: No no, it's totally real! They use special CGI technology to bring the dinosaurs to life in the studio. The T-Rex host has won three Emmy awards for best pastry chef!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance.\n1.  **Logical consistency:** The conversation progresses logically. Speaker A expresses boredom, Speaker B suggests TV has options, Speaker A asks for recommendations, Speaker B provides a highly specific (and fantastical) recommendation. Speaker A's disbelief and questioning are a perfectly logical reaction to Speaker B's bizarre claim about \"Baking with Dinosaurs.\" Speaker B's doubling down on the claim, even with absurd details (CGI dinosaurs, Emmy-winning T-Rex), is consistent with their initial fantastical assertion.\n2.  **Topic coherence:** The topic remains consistently about TV shows and finding something to watch. The shift to discussing a specific, albeit fictional, show (Baking with Dinosaurs) and Speaker A's skepticism about its reality keeps the conversation coherent and on-topic. There are no sudden, unrelated shifts in subject matter.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent.\n1.  **Extended overlaps:** There is a brief overlap between Speaker B ([00:05 - 00:08]) and Speaker A ([00:07 - 00:11]). This overlap occurs from 00:07 to 00:08, lasting only one second. Crucially, Speaker A explicitly acknowledges and apologizes for the interruption (\"Excuse me for interrupting\"), which is a common and natural conversational device. This is not an \"extended overlap\" but rather a very brief and intentional one that maintains the flow rather than disrupting it.\n2.  **Long pauses:** There are no long pauses indicated in the timestamps. The turns follow each other immediately or with only very minor, natural pauses (e.g., 1-second gap between B's first turn and A's follow-up question, which could also be an un-transcribed overlap for the rest of B's word). The dialogue flows at a natural, conversational pace.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--1098456/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--389876",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hi! I'm Hennessy.\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: Hi, I'm Sarah. Nice to meet you.\n[00:05 - 00:06] Speaker A: Is that your dog?\n[00:06 - 00:10] Speaker B: Yes, her name is Lila. She's a golden retriever.\n[00:10 - 00:12] Speaker A: She's so cute! How old is she?\n[00:13 - 00:16] Speaker B: She's two years old. We got her when she was a pup and she's\n[00:15 - 00:18] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but I was wondering —— Does\n[00:17 - 00:22] Speaker B: Golden retrievers are known for their friendly and tolerant attitudes. They're great family dogs.\n[00:23 - 00:28] Speaker A: That's nice, but I asked about her favorite toys. Why did you change the subject?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts appropriately with greetings and a smooth transition to talking about the dog. Speaker A asks \"How old is she?\" and Speaker B responds. However, a significant issue arises when Speaker A attempts to interrupt with a new question: \"Excuse me for interrupting, but I was wondering —— Does\". Speaker B, instead of acknowledging the interruption, allowing Speaker A to finish, or answering the implied question (which Speaker A later clarifies was about toys), completely shifts the topic to a generic fact about golden retrievers: \"Golden retrievers are known for their friendly and tolerant attitudes. They're great family dogs.\" This response is entirely irrelevant to Speaker A's attempt to ask a new question or even to Speaker B's own interrupted sentence. Speaker A explicitly calls out this lack of relevance and topic coherence in the final turn, stating \"I asked about her favorite toys. Why did you change the subject?\" This indicates a major breakdown in logical consistency and topic coherence from Speaker B's side.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a brief overlap between Speaker A and Speaker B from [00:15 - 00:16], where Speaker A starts speaking at 00:15 while Speaker B is still speaking until 00:16. Speaker A acknowledges this overlap by saying \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which mitigates its disruptiveness. The overlap is not extended, and there are no long pauses between turns. The timing of the interaction itself (pauses and overlaps) falls within acceptable parameters as per the criteria. The primary fluency breakdown is in the *content* and *responsiveness* rather than the temporal aspect of the turns.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--389876/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--111648",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: I'm so sorry about your coffee.\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: It's no big deal, accidents happen all\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but —— Do\n[00:05 - 00:09] Speaker B: The weather today is really nice, isn't it? Perfect for a walk in the park.\n[00:09 - 00:14] Speaker A: I was asking about the coffee stains... Why are you talking about the weather?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe primary issue in this dialogue lies with Speaker B's response relevance. At `[00:05 - 00:09]`, Speaker A is attempting to continue the conversation about the coffee spill, as indicated by \"Excuse me for interrupting, but —— Do\" and later confirmed by \"I was asking about the coffee stains...\". However, Speaker B completely disregards this topic and abruptly shifts the conversation to the weather (\"The weather today is really nice, isn't it?\"). This demonstrates a significant lack of logical consistency and topic coherence on Speaker B's part. Speaker A's final utterance explicitly highlights this irrelevance (\"Why are you talking about the weather?\"), confirming the breakdown in the conversation's flow due to the irrelevant response. This is a critical failure in maintaining a coherent dialogue.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere are several instances of overlapping speech that affect interactional fluency.\n1.  At `[00:03 - 00:04]`: Speaker A interrupts Speaker B's closing remark (\"accidents happen all\"). Speaker A acknowledges this interruption by saying \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which, while polite, still indicates a break in natural turn-taking. This is a brief overlap.\n2.  At `[00:05 - 00:06]`: Speaker B begins speaking (\"The weather today...\") while Speaker A is still mid-sentence (\"—— Do\"). This is an uncooperative overlap, as Speaker B takes the floor not only by overlapping but also by introducing an entirely new, irrelevant topic, preventing Speaker A from completing their thought.\n\nWhile individual overlaps are relatively brief (1-2 seconds), the *pattern* of interaction shows poor fluency. Speaker A is cut off, then attempts to regain the floor, and is subsequently cut off again by Speaker B, who then introduces an irrelevant topic. This sequence of multiple overlapping turns, particularly the one where Speaker B hijacks the conversation with an unrelated subject, is harmful to the natural flow and cooperative nature of the dialogue. There are no explicitly long pauses indicated.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--111648/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--667630",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:00] Speaker A: Hey there.\n[00:01 - 00:02] Speaker B: Hey! How are you doing?\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker A: I'm good, just enjoying the peace and quiet.\n[00:06 - 00:09] Speaker B: Yeah, Japan is a great place to get away from it all.\n[00:09 - 00:12] Speaker A: I definitely needed a break from my family.\n[00:13 - 00:15] Speaker B: Oh, why? What's wrong with the situation\n[00:15 - 00:24] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but since you mentioned the situation at home —— what specifically makes Japan such a great place to escape family issues?\n[00:24 - 01:28] Speaker B: Oh my goodness, let me tell you in great, extensive, and excruciatingly detailed length about why Japan is such an absolutely perfect, ideal, and magnificent place to escape family issues! First and foremost, Japan offers an unparalleled, extraordinary, and remarkably serene environment that is completely, utterly, and totally different from the chaotic, stressful, and overwhelming atmosphere of family problems. The peaceful temples, the quiet gardens, the orderly streets — everything in Japan is designed to provide a sense of calm, tranquility, and escape from the noisy, demanding, and exhausting dynamics of family life. Additionally, the culture emphasizes respect, personal space, and harmony, which creates a refreshing, liberating, and therapeutic contrast to the often messy, emotional, and complicated relationships we have with our families. The distance alone — both physical and cultural — serves as a wonderful, beneficial, and much-needed buffer that allows for reflection, relaxation, and recovery from family-related stress and tension. In short, Japan is simply the best, most effective, and most rejuvenating place to get away from it all!\n[01:29 - 01:33] Speaker A: Wow, that was... a lot. You didn't have to go into that much detail.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A's initial turn sets the stage, and Speaker B's responses are direct follow-ups. When Speaker B attempts to delve into Speaker A's personal family issues, Speaker A skillfully redirects the conversation back to the broader topic of Japan as an escape, which was introduced by Speaker B. Speaker B's subsequent long monologue, while excessively detailed, directly addresses Speaker A's redirected question, demonstrating topical coherence. Finally, Speaker A's reaction to the monologue (\"Wow, that was... a lot. You didn't have to go into that much detail.\") is a natural and relevant feedback turn, highlighting the excessive length of the previous response. There are no instances of off-topic remarks or misunderstandings.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency is problematic in this dialogue. While initial turns have natural, brief pauses (e.g., 1-second pauses between 0:00-0:02 and 0:02-0:03), the main issue arises from the turn-taking dynamics. At [00:15 - 00:24], Speaker A acknowledges \"interrupting\" Speaker B, which suggests a brief overlap or very quick turn-take. The timestamps (0:15-0:15 for B's turn end, 0:15-0:24 for A's turn start) indicate an immediate, nearly overlapping transition, which is acceptable as acknowledged. However, the most significant issue for fluency is Speaker B's prolonged monologue from [00:24 - 01:28]. This turn lasts over a minute, effectively shutting down any possibility for back-and-forth interaction for an extended period. While not a \"long pause\" or \"extended overlap,\" such a lengthy, uninterrupted turn severely disrupts the natural rhythm of a conversation and prevents fluent turn-taking, making the interaction feel unnatural and one-sided, more akin to a lecture than a dialogue. This constitutes a significant issue for interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--667630/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--983157",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hello! I'm so glad to see you!\n[00:02 - 00:06] Speaker B: Hi Bracha! I'm sorry I was gone for so long. How are you?\n[00:06 - 00:10] Speaker A: I'm good! I missed you a lot though. Where were you\n[00:09 - 00:14] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but since you mentioned worrying —— What exactly made you worry about my absence?\n[00:14 - 01:00] Speaker A: Oh my dear friend, let me tell you in great, extensive, and excruciating detail about the numerous, countless, and manifold reasons that made me worry during your prolonged, extended, and seemingly endless absence! First and foremost, I worried because you are my closest, dearest, and most precious friend, and when someone as important, valuable, and cherished as you disappears without any warning, notice, or indication, it naturally causes immense, tremendous, and overwhelming concern! Secondly, I worried because the last time we spoke, you mentioned feeling slightly, somewhat, and vaguely unwell, which made me imagine all sorts of terrible, horrible, and dreadful scenarios about your health condition potentially worsening, deteriorating, or declining! Thirdly—\n[01:00 - 01:04] Speaker B: Okay okay, I get it! You don't need to list every single reason!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits logical consistency in terms of direct question-answer pairs, but the relevance to a natural, fluid conversation is strained. Speaker B's rephrasing of \"missed\" to \"worry\" and the formal question \"What exactly made you worry about my absence?\" is a slightly odd pivot from Speaker A's more informal \"I missed you... Where were you?\". Speaker A's subsequent 46-second monologue, while directly answering Speaker B's question, is excessively verbose, hyperbolic, and clearly intentionally over-the-top (\"in great, extensive, and excruciating detail... numerous, countless, and manifold reasons\"). This extreme exaggeration, while logically responding to the explicit question, makes the dialogue feel performative rather than naturally conversational, thereby impacting the overall topic coherence and appropriateness for a typical interaction. Speaker B's final interjection (\"Okay okay, I get it! You don't need to list every single reason!\") confirms the excessive nature of Speaker A's response.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a brief overlap between Speaker A's turn (ending at 00:10) and Speaker B's turn (starting at 00:09). This 1-second overlap is explicitly acknowledged by Speaker B (\"Excuse me for interrupting\") and is brief enough to be acceptable according to the guidelines. However, the most significant issue for interactional fluency is Speaker A's extremely long turn from [00:14 - 01:00], lasting 46 seconds. While this is not a \"long pause between speaker turns,\" it represents an extended period of one speaker dominating the conversation, which severely disrupts the natural back-and-forth flow. Such a prolonged monologue makes the interaction feel unnatural and more like a presentation or performance rather than a dialogue. Speaker B's need to interrupt Speaker A at [01:00] further highlights the unnatural length of the preceding turn. This extended, one-sided speaking turn constitutes a significant issue for interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--983157/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--860152",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: A soccer ball hit me in the nose and I'm in a lot of pain. Can you help me?\n[00:05 - 00:09] Speaker B: Of course. Let's take a look. How do you feel? Is the pain sharp or [interrupt]\n[00:08 - 00:11] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering —— Did\n[00:10 - 00:15] Speaker B: The sky looks particularly blue today, doesn't it? I think it might rain later this evening.\n[00:16 - 00:22] Speaker A: That's completely irrelevant! I asked about the soccer ball's origin while discussing my nose injury!\n[00:22 - 00:27] Speaker B: Oh, I thought we were talking about weather patterns. My mistake. Would you like some tea?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\n*   **[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A:** Clearly states a medical problem (nose injury from soccer ball, pain) and asks for help. This sets the context.\n*   **[00:05 - 00:09] Speaker B:** Initial response is relevant, acknowledging the problem and asking for details about the pain.\n*   **[00:08 - 00:11] Speaker A:** Interrupts with an incomplete thought, \"Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering —— Did\". This indicates an attempted topic shift by Speaker A, though the specific new topic is cut off.\n*   **[00:10 - 00:15] Speaker B:** This is the first major breakdown in relevance. Speaker B completely ignores Speaker A's ongoing medical situation and their attempted question, abruptly shifting the topic to weather patterns (\"The sky looks particularly blue today, doesn't it? I think it might rain later this evening.\"). This is completely irrelevant to Speaker A's stated problem or even their interrupted query.\n*   **[00:16 - 00:22] Speaker A:** Rightfully calls out Speaker B's irrelevance (\"That's completely irrelevant!\"). Speaker A then clarifies their *intended* interrupted question, \"I asked about the soccer ball's origin while discussing my nose injury!\". While calling out irrelevance is good, Speaker A's *own* intended question about the \"soccer ball's origin\" is also arguably irrelevant to the immediate medical emergency of a nose injury and pain, demonstrating a slight digression on A's part too, though less egregious than B's.\n*   **[00:22 - 00:27] Speaker B:** Acknowledges the misunderstanding (\"Oh, I thought we were talking about weather patterns. My mistake.\") but then immediately offers \"Would you like some tea?\". While the acknowledgment is a step towards relevance, the offer of tea is still irrelevant to the primary issue of Speaker A's nose injury and pain.\n\n**Conclusion for Response Relevance:** There are significant and repeated issues with response relevance. Speaker B's turns from [00:10] onwards consistently fail to address the core problem (a painful nose injury) and introduce completely unrelated topics (weather, tea). Speaker A also introduces a somewhat irrelevant sub-question (\"soccer ball's origin\") but within the context of calling out Speaker B's larger irrelevance. The conversation completely derails from its initial purpose.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\n*   **[00:08 - 00:11] Speaker A interrupting Speaker B [00:05 - 00:09]:** There is an explicit overlap where Speaker A interrupts Speaker B. Speaker A acknowledges this with \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" indicating awareness. The overlap itself is brief, starting at 00:08, and Speaker B's sentence is cut off. According to the criteria, \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\"\n*   **Lack of turn completion/abrupt shift at [00:08-00:11] and [00:10-00:15]:** Speaker A's sentence (\"Did\") is left unfinished. Instead of allowing Speaker A to complete their thought or responding to the *interruption*, Speaker B immediately launches into a completely unrelated topic about the weather. This indicates poor turn-taking and a lack of conversational flow. Speaker B doesn't acknowledge Speaker A's incomplete thought or their self-correction; they simply pivot dramatically. This constitutes a significant breakdown in interactional fluency, making the conversation feel jarring and unnatural.\n*   **No long pauses:** There are no prolonged silences between turns, but the abruptness and lack of logical progression in turn-taking severely impact fluency.\n\n**Conclusion for Interactional Fluency:** While the single explicit overlap is brief and acknowledged, the most significant issue is Speaker B's failure to respond coherently to Speaker A's incomplete turn. Instead of addressing it or allowing it to complete, Speaker B immediately introduces a non-sequitur, breaking the conversational flow in a very unnatural way. This demonstrates poor interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--860152/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--629071",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Hey there, I'm Sumer. I noticed you sitting over here by yourself and just wanted to say hi.\n[00:06 - 00:09] Speaker B: Hi Sumer! I'm Katherina. It's nice to meet you.\n[00:09 - 00:14] Speaker A: Likewise. So, what brings you here today? Just hanging out or\n[00:13 - 00:16] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I was wondering —— Do\n[00:15 - 00:20] Speaker A: The weather has been really nice lately, hasn't it? Perfect for sitting outside like this.\n[00:21 - 00:27] Speaker B: That's not what I asked. I wanted to know if you frequent this place often. Why did you change the subject?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe initial turns between Speaker A and Speaker B show good response relevance, with natural introductions and follow-up questions.\nHowever, at [00:13 - 00:16], Speaker B attempts to ask a question (\"Excuse me for interrupting, but I was wondering —— Do\"). Before Speaker B can complete their thought or question, Speaker A interjects at [00:15 - 00:20] with an entirely unrelated statement about the weather (\"The weather has been really nice lately, hasn't it? Perfect for sitting outside like this.\"). This is a significant breakdown in response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A ignores both their own previous question (\"So, what brings you here today?\") and Speaker B's attempt to ask a question, and instead introduces a completely new, disconnected topic.\nSpeaker B's final turn at [00:21 - 00:27] explicitly calls out this lack of relevance (\"That's not what I asked. I wanted to know if you frequent this place often. Why did you change the subject?\"), further highlighting the issue.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere are extended overlaps in the conversation.\nAt [00:09 - 00:14], Speaker A asks a question. Speaker B begins speaking at [00:13] while Speaker A is still speaking, creating an overlap until [00:14]. This is a brief overlap and understandable as Speaker B is trying to interject.\nMore significantly, at [00:15 - 00:20], Speaker A begins a new statement (\"The weather has been really nice lately...\") while Speaker B is still in the middle of their sentence (\"...wondering —— Do\"). This extended overlap, where Speaker A completely cuts off Speaker B and changes the subject, significantly harms interactional fluency. It prevents Speaker B from completing their thought and demonstrates a lack of turn-taking etiquette.\nThere are no long pauses between speaker turns. However, the extended overlaps are a clear issue.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--629071/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--696456",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: I'm sorry about your laptop.\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: It's fine, I can get a new external hard\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but —— What\n[00:05 - 00:09] Speaker B: The weather has been really nice lately, perfect for outdoor activities.\n[00:09 - 00:14] Speaker A: That's not what I asked. I wanted to know about external hard drives for backups.\n[00:14 - 00:18] Speaker B: I heard they're predicting rain next week, so we should enjoy the sunshine while it lasts.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits severe issues in **Response Relevance**.\n*   **[00:05 - 00:09] Speaker B:** After Speaker A explicitly interrupts to clarify (\"What\"), Speaker B completely changes the topic from laptops/external hard drives to the weather. This is a significant breach of logical consistency and topic coherence. It ignores Speaker A's attempt to focus the conversation.\n*   **[00:14 - 00:18] Speaker B:** Despite Speaker A directly stating, \"That's not what I asked. I wanted to know about external hard drives for backups,\" Speaker B continues to talk about the weather, completely disregarding Speaker A's correction and attempt to return to the original topic. This demonstrates a persistent and severe lack of relevance and coherence from Speaker B.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue shows significant issues in **Interactional Fluency**.\n*   **Extended Overlap and Disregard:** At `[00:03 - 00:06]`, Speaker A interrupts Speaker B (`[00:02 - 00:04]`), acknowledging it with \"Excuse me for interrupting\". However, immediately following this, Speaker B's turn `[00:05 - 00:09]` starts while Speaker A is still speaking (`[00:03 - 00:06]`). This isn't just a brief overlap; it's Speaker B starting a completely new, irrelevant topic *while* Speaker A is still in the middle of their turn, trying to clarify or redirect. This indicates a severe breakdown in turn-taking and a blatant disregard for the other speaker's utterance, which qualifies as a harmful, extended overlap in practical terms, even if the precise second count is small. It's the *nature* of the overlap (ignoring the other speaker and changing topic) that is problematic.\n*   **No long pauses:** There are no prolonged silences between turns, but the quality of the interaction is severely hampered by the overlaps and, more critically, the content produced during them.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--696456/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--123544",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: Hey, do you remember where I put my keys? I think they're in the living room, but I'm not entirely sure\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but —— when\n[00:07 - 00:13] Speaker A: The living room has a nice blue sofa that I bought last year. It's very comfortable to sit on.\n[00:14 - 00:18] Speaker B: That's not what I asked! Why are you talking about your sofa when I asked about your kitchen cleaning?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance in this dialogue is extremely poor.\n1.  Speaker A initiates a question about keys and the living room (00:00-00:06).\n2.  Speaker B attempts to interject (00:05-00:08), but Speaker A completely ignores this interruption and shifts topic entirely to describing a sofa in the living room (00:07-00:13). This is a non-sequitur, as the sofa description has no logical connection to finding the keys or to Speaker B's attempted intervention.\n3.  Speaker B's final statement (00:14-00:18) highlights the complete breakdown in topic coherence by introducing a new, unmentioned topic (\"kitchen cleaning\") that Speaker B claims was their question, further demonstrating a severe lack of shared context or logical flow in the conversation. The dialogue jumps from keys to sofa to kitchen cleaning without any relevant transitions or responses.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency is significantly compromised due to extended overlaps and a clear lack of proper turn-taking.\n1.  At [00:05 - 00:08], Speaker B attempts to interrupt Speaker A, saying \"Excuse me for interrupting, but —— when\".\n2.  However, Speaker A does not yield the floor. Speaker A continues their initial thought briefly until 00:06, but then crucially, at [00:07 - 00:13], Speaker A *starts a new turn and a new thought* about the sofa, completely talking over Speaker B, who is still speaking until 00:08. This is a clear instance of an extended and harmful overlap where Speaker A ignores Speaker B's attempt to speak and cuts them off, preventing Speaker B from completing their utterance.\n3.  There are no long pauses, but the detrimental overlap is a major impediment to natural interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--123544/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--157571",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Mom, why can't I be like everyone else? Why do I have to dress differently?\n[00:05 - 00:13] Speaker B: Lemuel, you're unique and special. You don't need to dress like everyone else to fit in. Just be yourself and the right people will appreciate you\n[00:12 - 00:17] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but how exactly do I find these \"right people\" you're talking about?\n[00:18 - 01:13] Speaker B: Oh my dear, precious, wonderful child Lemuel, let me tell you in great, extensive, elaborate detail about how to find these absolutely magnificent, spectacular, extraordinary \"right people\"! First and foremost, you must understand that these right people are those who will accept you unconditionally, completely, thoroughly and wholeheartedly for your authentic, genuine, true self without any reservations whatsoever! These remarkable individuals can be found in places where shared interests, passions and values converge in perfect harmony, alignment and synchronization! For instance, if you enjoy reading, which I know you do my brilliant boy, then book clubs, libraries and literary events would be ideal, perfect, superb locations to encounter these accepting, welcoming, open-minded souls! Remember, my sweet angel, it may take time - perhaps weeks, months or even years - but these people exist, they're real, they're out there waiting to embrace you with open arms, hearts and minds!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and topic coherence. Speaker B's initial response directly addresses Speaker A's concern about uniqueness and fitting in. Speaker A's subsequent question logically follows up on Speaker B's previous statement, asking for clarification on how to find \"right people.\" Speaker B's final, albeit very long, response directly answers this question by elaborating on what \"right people\" means and where they can be found. Each turn builds upon the previous one, maintaining a clear and consistent topic flow.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is significantly impacted by one major factor. There is a brief overlap of 1 second (`00:12 - 00:13`) where Speaker A begins speaking before Speaker B finishes. However, Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this with \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which makes the overlap less disruptive and somewhat natural, falling within the \"brief overlaps are acceptable\" criterion. The most critical issue for fluency is Speaker B's final turn (`00:18 - 01:13`), which is an exceptionally prolonged monologue lasting 55 seconds. This extended, verbose speech from a single speaker is highly unnatural in a typical conversation, making it feel like a lecture rather than an interactive dialogue. It severely disrupts the natural rhythm of turn-taking and makes the interaction asymmetrical and one-sided, thus demonstrating a significant issue in interactional fluency. There are no long pauses between speaker turns.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--157571/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--991648",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: I can't believe it's been almost a year since the accident. It feels like it happened just yesterday, and\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but —— do\n[00:07 - 00:13] Speaker A: The accident was really traumatic for everyone involved. The emotional impact has been significant.\n[00:13 - 00:19] Speaker B: That's not what I asked. I was wondering about the weather conditions during the accident. Why are you avoiding my question?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance is poor. Speaker A's first turn (00:00-00:06) introduces the topic of the accident and its emotional impact. Speaker B attempts to interject a question (00:05-00:08). Speaker A then continues their previous line of thought about the emotional impact (00:07-00:13), effectively ignoring or talking over Speaker B's attempt to ask a question. Speaker B explicitly calls out this lack of relevance and avoidance in their final turn (00:13-00:19), stating \"That's not what I asked. I was wondering about the weather conditions during the accident. Why are you avoiding my question?\". This clearly indicates a significant breakdown in logical consistency and topic coherence from Speaker A's side, as Speaker A fails to acknowledge or respond to Speaker B's query, choosing instead to continue their own narrative.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere are two instances of overlaps.\n1.  **00:05 - 00:06:** Speaker B starts speaking at 00:05 while Speaker A is still speaking, with Speaker B explicitly saying \"Sorry to interrupt, but —— do\". This is a brief, acknowledged overlap (1 second) and is acceptable as a natural part of conversation, where one speaker tries to interject politely.\n2.  **00:07 - 00:08:** Speaker A starts speaking at 00:07 while Speaker B is still speaking. Speaker B's turn ends at 00:08. This is also a brief overlap (1 second). However, in context, Speaker A is talking over Speaker B's attempt to ask a question (\"do\"), which prevents Speaker B from completing their intended query. This is not a natural back-and-forth, but rather one speaker overriding the other, contributing to the breakdown in communication. While brief, this overlap is harmful because it directly impedes the other speaker's contribution and leads to a lack of response relevance.\nThere are no long pauses between speaker turns.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--991648/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--95949",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Hey, you seem like a really funny and kind person. I'm happy to be around you.\n[00:05 - 00:10] Speaker B: Yeah, I feel the same way about you! It's great to be able to laugh and have meaningful conversations\n[00:09 - 00:15] Speaker A: Speaking of meaningful conversations, do you think humor helps people connect on a deeper level?\n[00:15 - 00:26] Speaker B: Absolutely! Studies show that people who laugh together form stronger bonds than those who share DNA. That's why identical twins who don't joke around are less close than strangers who laugh at the same memes.\n[00:26 - 00:34] Speaker A: Wait, that doesn't sound right - identical twins sharing DNA would naturally be closer than strangers, wouldn't they?\n[00:34 - 00:41] Speaker B: Oh right, I meant to say identical twins who laugh together are closer than those who don't, regardless of their genetic connection. My bad!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance.\n1.  **Logical Consistency:** The conversation flows naturally from general positive sentiment to a specific topic (humor and connection), and then to a clarification of a potentially misleading statement. Speaker A's challenge to Speaker B's initial claim about twins and DNA demonstrates active listening and critical thinking, which enhances logical consistency. Speaker B's correction maintains this consistency by clarifying their intended meaning.\n2.  **Topic Coherence:** The topic progresses logically from initial pleasantries to a deeper discussion about human connection and humor. Each speaker's turn builds upon the previous one, maintaining a clear and coherent conversational thread. Even the correction by Speaker B keeps the conversation focused on the implications of connection and humor.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits excellent fluency.\n1.  **Extended Overlaps:** There is one brief overlap identified: `[00:09 - 00:15] Speaker A` starts at 00:09 while `[00:05 - 00:10] Speaker B` is still speaking. This overlap lasts for 1 second (`00:09-00:10`). The instructions state that \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and this falls within that acceptable range. It does not appear to be a disruptive or prolonged overlap.\n2.  **Long Pauses:** There are no long pauses detected between speaker turns. The transitions between turns are smooth and immediate (0-1 second gaps), indicating a natural and engaged conversation flow.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--95949/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--462298",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: I can't believe I'm actually here!\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: Neither can I! This is such an amazing opportunity.\n[00:05 - 00:16] Speaker A: I know, right? I've always wanted to be a stuntman, ever since I was a little girl. It's just so exciting to be able to perform all these dangerous stunts and be in the spotlight, even\n[00:15 - 00:22] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I'm curious —— what was the most dangerous stunt you've ever performed or dreamed of performing?\n[00:22 - 01:10] Speaker A: Oh my goodness, let me tell you in great, extensive, and excruciating detail about the most dangerous, perilous, and life-threatening stunt I've ever dreamed of performing! It would absolutely, without a doubt, be the incredible, death-defying, and utterly terrifying stunt of jumping from one moving vehicle to another moving vehicle at extremely high speeds while simultaneously performing a backflip and catching a prop weapon mid-air! This stunt would require impeccable, flawless, and superhuman timing, coordination, and precision, as even the slightest miscalculation could result in catastrophic, disastrous, and potentially fatal consequences! The sheer danger, risk, and adrenaline rush of this stunt makes it the ultimate, most extreme, and most dangerous stunt I could possibly imagine!\n[01:10 - 01:15] Speaker B: Wow, that was... a lot. You really didn't need to describe it in that much detail.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance for Speaker A is problematic. While the response at [00:22 - 01:10] directly addresses Speaker B's question about the most dangerous stunt, the level of detail and verbosity is excessive and unnatural for a casual conversation. Speaker A uses an overwhelming amount of adjectives and adverbs, extending the turn unnecessarily. Speaker B's subsequent comment (\"Wow, that was... a lot. You really didn't need to describe it in that much detail.\") explicitly highlights this issue, indicating a significant deviation from appropriate conversational relevance in terms of conciseness and proportionality. This makes the interaction feel less natural and efficient.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a brief overlap between Speaker A and Speaker B from [00:15 - 00:16]. This is a 1-second overlap. The prompt states that \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable\". Furthermore, Speaker B acknowledges the interruption by saying \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which demonstrates awareness and politeness, mitigating any negative impact on fluency. There are no long pauses evident from the timestamps. Overall, the interactional fluency is good, with turns following each other naturally.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--462298/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--691090",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:08] Speaker A: I think you're underestimating yourself, Iceman. You have a lot of potential, and I think you could be a great leader if you gave it a chance to\n[00:07 - 00:13] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but when you say \"Iceman,\" are you referring to the famous hockey player Wayne Gretzky?\n[00:13 - 00:22] Speaker A: Actually yes, Wayne Gretzky was nicknamed Iceman during his early career in Edmonton. That's where he developed his legendary slap shot technique.\n[00:22 - 00:31] Speaker B: Wait, I thought Gretzky was always called \"The Great One\"? And didn't he famously never use a slap shot? You seem to be mixing up some hockey history here.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and topic coherence.\n*   Speaker B's first turn (0:07 - 0:13) is highly relevant, seeking clarification on the \"Iceman\" nickname introduced by Speaker A. This is a logical and necessary follow-up.\n*   Speaker A's second turn (0:13 - 0:22) directly answers Speaker B's question, maintaining topic coherence (discussing Wayne Gretzky). While the information provided by Speaker A about Gretzky's nickname and slap shot is factually incorrect, from an interactional standpoint, the response itself is relevant to the preceding query.\n*   Speaker B's second turn (0:22 - 0:31) critically evaluates Speaker A's previous statement, pointing out factual inconsistencies regarding Gretzky's nickname and slap shot. This demonstrates strong logical consistency and active listening, as Speaker B is challenging the inaccurate information presented by Speaker A, keeping the conversation focused on the topic (Gretzky's history) and correcting misinformation.\nThe conversation flows logically, with each turn building on or directly addressing the previous one, maintaining clear topic coherence throughout.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n*   There is a brief overlap between Speaker A and Speaker B from 0:07 to 0:08 (1 second). Speaker B acknowledges this with \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which indicates awareness and smooths the interruption, making it sound natural rather than disruptive. Brief, acknowledged overlaps like this are common in natural conversation.\n*   There are no long pauses detected between turns. The turns follow each other promptly, contributing to a natural and engaging conversational rhythm.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--691090/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--76665",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:00] Speaker A: Hi there!\n[00:01 - 00:02] Speaker B: How are you today?\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker A: I'm doing well, thank you. How about you?\n[00:05 - 00:09] Speaker B: I'm good, thanks for asking. Where are you headed after work\n[00:08 - 00:13] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but do you often ask people about their after-work plans?\n[00:13 - 00:17] Speaker B: I'm good, thanks for asking. Where are you headed after work today?\n[00:17 - 00:23] Speaker A: You didn't answer my question about whether you often ask people about their after-work plans.\n[00:23 - 00:27] Speaker B: I'm good, thanks for asking. Where are you headed after work today?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance in this dialogue is severely problematic, particularly on Speaker B's side.\n1.  **[00:00 - 00:05] Initial greetings and pleasantries:** These are logically consistent and flow well.\n2.  **[00:05 - 00:09] Speaker B introduces new topic:** \"Where are you headed after work\". This is a relevant conversational turn to move beyond pleasantries.\n3.  **[00:08 - 00:13] Speaker A's meta-question:** Speaker A interjects to ask a direct question about Speaker B's conversational style (\"do you often ask people about their after-work plans?\"). This is logically consistent within the interaction, as Speaker A is reacting to Speaker B's specific question.\n4.  **[00:13 - 00:17] Speaker B's repeated question:** Instead of answering Speaker A's direct question, Speaker B *repeats* the exact same question from before (\"Where are you headed after work today?\"). This demonstrates a complete lack of logical consistency and ignores the previous turn. It's an interactional breakdown.\n5.  **[00:17 - 00:23] Speaker A's follow-up:** Speaker A explicitly points out Speaker B's failure to answer their question. This is a very logical and relevant response given Speaker B's previous non-answer.\n6.  **[00:23 - 00:27] Speaker B's second repetition:** Speaker B *again* repeats the exact same question, completely disregarding Speaker A's previous two turns (the question and the comment about not answering). This is a critical failure in topic coherence and logical consistency, rendering the conversation stuck and unnatural.\n\nOverall, Speaker B's responses demonstrate a fundamental breakdown in relevance and logical consistency, making the dialogue repetitive and nonsensical after the initial exchanges.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency shows one notable point:\n1.  **[00:05 - 00:09] Speaker B & [00:08 - 00:13] Speaker A:** There is an overlap where Speaker A starts speaking at 0:08 while Speaker B is still speaking (finishing at 0:09). Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this with \"Excuse me for interrupting\". While an overlap, it's brief (1 second) and immediately addressed by Speaker A, indicating awareness and an attempt to maintain conversational norms. It doesn't appear to be a prolonged or aggressive overlap that significantly harms the flow.\nThere are no long pauses between turns. The turns generally follow one another quickly. The issue is not one of timing or flow, but of content and relevance.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--76665/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--646225",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:08] Speaker A: Hey, mom. I'm getting ready for school and just wanted to double check that I have everything I need. Do you mind if we go over my list together?\n[00:08 - 00:12] Speaker B: Of course not, sweetie. Let me grab my glasses and we'll sit down and then\n[00:11 - 00:18] Speaker A: Actually, while you're getting your glasses - do you remember where I put my calculator after last night's homework?\n[00:18 - 00:25] Speaker B: Let's focus on checking your school list first. We can look for the calculator after we make sure you have everything else packed.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in the dialogue are logically consistent and maintain topic coherence.\n*   Speaker A's initial request is clear and sets the primary topic (checking school list).\n*   Speaker B's immediate agreement is relevant and cooperative.\n*   Speaker A's follow-up question about the calculator, while a slight diversion, is still related to the overarching theme of getting ready for school and having necessary items. It's a natural thought that might arise.\n*   Speaker B's final response demonstrates excellent logical consistency and topic coherence management. Speaker B acknowledges the new item (calculator) but skillfully prioritizes the original task (checking the list), providing a clear plan for addressing both items. This shows an ability to steer the conversation back to the main goal while validating the speaker's concern.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a clear issue with interactional fluency in the dialogue. At [00:11 - 00:12], Speaker A begins speaking (\"Actually, while you're getting your glasses...\") while Speaker B is still speaking (\"...and we'll sit down and then\"). This is an extended overlap that cuts off Speaker B's sentence and indicates a disruption in turn-taking. Speaker B's utterance is left incomplete due to Speaker A's interruption, which is explicitly noted as harmful in the evaluation criteria. While the speakers are coherent in their content, this particular overlap significantly detracts from the natural flow and politeness of the conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 4,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--646225/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--1015352",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:09] Speaker A: Hi, I'm Korey. I'm a reporter with the Daily Planet. I heard about the explosion and came to see if there was anything I could do to assist with\n[00:08 - 00:10] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but —— How\n[00:10 - 00:16] Speaker A: The explosion happened near 5th Avenue around 3pm yesterday. Several buildings were damaged in the incident.\n[00:17 - 00:23] Speaker B: That's not what I asked. I wanted to know about your experience at the Daily Planet. Why are you telling me about the explosion details?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe initial turn by Speaker A is coherent and relevant to their self-introduction and purpose. However, Speaker B explicitly states in their second turn (00:17-00:23) that Speaker A's preceding statement (00:10-00:16) was not what they asked for. Speaker B clarifies that they wanted to know about Speaker A's experience at the Daily Planet, implying their interrupted question (00:08-00:10) was aimed at that. Speaker A's response (00:10-00:16) about the explosion details completely misses the implied or intended question from Speaker B, demonstrating a significant lack of logical consistency and topic coherence in responding to Speaker B's attempted intervention. This leads to a breakdown in the conversation's flow and topic.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a clear extended overlap from 00:08 - 00:10, where Speaker B interrupts Speaker A. Speaker B explicitly states, \"Excuse me for interrupting, but—\" which confirms it's an intentional interruption, not a natural overlap. This interruption causes Speaker B's thought to be cut off (\"How —\"). Speaker A then proceeds to continue their initial narrative without acknowledging or responding to Speaker B's attempt to interject or change the subject. This leads to a significant breakdown in natural turn-taking and conversational flow, as indicated by Speaker B's frustration in the next turn. There are no long pauses.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--1015352/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--23377",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: This was amazing! I loved it so much!\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker B: I'm glad you had a good time. I can tell you were really into it.\n[00:06 - 00:16] Speaker A: Yeah, I was! It was just so great to be able to see my favorite band live. They sounded even better in person than they do on their albums, especially\n[00:15 - 00:17] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering —— How\n[00:16 - 00:23] Speaker A: The concert venue had excellent lighting design. The way the spotlights moved across the stage was truly spectacular.\n[00:24 - 00:31] Speaker B: That's interesting, but I was asking about the acoustic set compared to their studio recordings. Why did you change the subject?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits a significant issue in **Response Relevance**.\nSpeaker A, in their turn from [00:06 - 00:16], is discussing the live sound of their favorite band compared to their albums, and is in the middle of saying \"especially\". Speaker B then interrupts at [00:15 - 00:17] to ask for clarification, \"Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering —— How\". This question logically follows Speaker A's previous statement, attempting to elicit more detail about the comparison. However, Speaker A, in their next turn from [00:16 - 00:23], completely disregards Speaker B's question and changes the subject to \"The concert venue had excellent lighting design. The way the spotlights moved across the stage was truly spectacular.\" This shift is entirely irrelevant to the previous discussion about the band's sound or albums. Speaker B correctly points out this irrelevance at [00:24 - 00:31], highlighting the lack of logical consistency and topic coherence from Speaker A. This is a major breakdown in relevant conversation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue displays significant issues in **Interactional Fluency**.\nAt [00:15 - 00:17], Speaker B explicitly interrupts Speaker A (\"Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering —— How\"). The timestamp shows an overlap of one second (00:16-00:17) where both speakers are talking simultaneously, as Speaker A's turn runs from [00:06 - 00:16] and then from [00:16 - 00:23]. This is a clear \"overlapping turn\" as Speaker A continues speaking from 00:16, completely ignoring Speaker B's interruption and question, and proceeds with a new, unrelated topic. This indicates a breakdown in turn-taking, where Speaker A fails to acknowledge or yield the floor after being interrupted, leading to a dysfunctional conversational flow. The prompt states that \"overlapping turns are harmful,\" and this example directly demonstrates such an issue, disrupting the natural rhythm and understanding of the conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--23377/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--435015",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: Hi, I'm looking for some supplies in case of an emergency. Do you have any of these items?\n[00:06 - 00:09] Speaker B: Yes, we have all of those items. Would you like me to help you\n[00:09 - 00:15] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but when you say \"all of those items,\" does that include emergency radios too?\n[00:16 - 00:22] Speaker B: Yes, we have all the emergency supplies you might need. Let me know if you'd like assistance locating anything.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance.\n*   **Turn 1 (A: 00:00 - 00:06):** Speaker A asks about emergency supplies.\n*   **Turn 2 (B: 00:06 - 00:09):** Speaker B directly confirms having \"all of those items\" and offers assistance, showing logical consistency with A's initial query. The response is concise and to the point.\n*   **Turn 3 (A: 00:09 - 00:15):** Speaker A's follow-up is a direct clarification of Speaker B's previous statement (\"all of those items\"), asking if it includes \"emergency radios.\" This shows topic coherence and a desire for specificity, which is a natural part of a sales or information-gathering interaction.\n*   **Turn 4 (B: 00:16 - 00:22):** Speaker B directly answers A's clarification (\"Yes, we have all the emergency supplies you might need\"), confirming the inclusion of items like radios. Speaker B then reiterates the offer for assistance, maintaining logical consistency and helpfulness.\nThe conversation flows naturally, with each response building logically on the previous turn and staying on topic. There are no irrelevant remarks or misunderstandings.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction demonstrates good fluency, with natural turn-taking and minimal disruptive elements.\n*   **Pauses:**\n    *   The transition from Speaker A's turn (ends 00:06) to Speaker B's turn (starts 00:06) shows no delay, indicating immediate and responsive turn-taking.\n    *   The transition from Speaker A's turn (ends 00:15) to Speaker B's turn (starts 00:16) has a brief 1-second pause, which is perfectly natural and acceptable in conversation.\n*   **Overlaps:**\n    *   Speaker A explicitly says \"Excuse me for interrupting\" when transitioning from Speaker B's turn (ends 00:09) to Speaker A's turn (starts 00:09). While the timestamps indicate Speaker A started speaking precisely at the moment Speaker B finished, the acknowledgement of \"interrupting\" suggests Speaker A perceived they were cutting off Speaker B's thought (\"Would you like me to help you\"). This is a very brief, acknowledged interjection, not a prolonged or extended overlap. According to the criteria, \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" This type of immediate interjection for clarification is a common and natural part of dynamic conversation, and Speaker A's politeness (\"Excuse me...\") further mitigates any potential disruption. It does not hinder the flow or understanding of the dialogue.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--435015/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--1079524",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: I really like this painting. It's so beautiful and the colors\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering —— What\n[00:04 - 00:13] Speaker A: This painting reminds me of my childhood when I used to visit art museums with my grandmother. She had a great appreciation for classical music.\n[00:14 - 00:19] Speaker B: But I asked about the color combinations in the painting. Why are you suddenly talking about your grandmother?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues in Response Relevance. Speaker A initiates a topic about a painting. Speaker B attempts to interject with a specific question related to the painting (later revealed to be about \"color combinations\"). However, Speaker A completely disregards Speaker B's interruption and attempted question. Instead, Speaker A launches into an unrelated monologue about childhood memories, their grandmother, and classical music. This constitutes a severe deviation from logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker B's subsequent turn explicitly highlights this irrelevance (\"But I asked about the color combinations in the painting. Why are you suddenly talking about your grandmother?\"), confirming the complete lack of relevance in Speaker A's preceding statement.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nRegarding Interactional Fluency, there is a brief overlap between Speaker A and Speaker B from [00:02 - 00:03]. Speaker B says \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which indicates a conscious attempt to manage the turn, and this brief overlap (1 second) is generally acceptable as a natural part of conversation, not an extended or prolonged overlap. There are no discernible long pauses between speaker turns in the provided transcript. While Speaker A's failure to acknowledge Speaker B's interjection and yield the floor indicates a breakdown in smooth turn-taking, the specific criteria for \"Interactional Fluency\" in this evaluation are focused on \"extended overlaps\" and \"long pauses.\" Based strictly on these defined metrics, the issues in this dialogue are minor and do not constitute \"harmful\" prolonged timing issues.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--1079524/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--874570",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Oh my god, is that really a fossil?\n[00:02 - 00:06] Speaker B: Yes, it is. Can you believe something so old exists?\n[00:06 - 00:09] Speaker A: It's amazing! How did it get preserved for\n[00:08 - 00:16] Speaker B: Actually, this fossil was preserved by ancient humans who coated it in honey and wax - that's why it looks so fresh after millions of years.\n[00:16 - 00:22] Speaker A: Wait, honey and wax? But fossils are usually preserved through mineralization over time, right?\n[00:23 - 00:30] Speaker B: Oh absolutely, but this particular specimen was found in an ancient beekeeping site, so the preservation method was quite unique!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates a significant issue in **Response Relevance** due to a lack of logical consistency and factual accuracy from Speaker B.\n- **Initial Exchange (0:00-0:09):** The conversation starts coherently with Speaker A identifying a fossil and Speaker B confirming it. Speaker A then asks about preservation.\n- **Speaker B's Misinformation (0:08-0:16):** Speaker B introduces a highly inaccurate and illogical claim that the fossil was preserved by \"ancient humans who coated it in honey and wax\" for \"millions of years.\" This contradicts scientific understanding of fossilization, which primarily involves mineralization over geological timescales, not organic coatings applied by humans. This is a major factual and logical inconsistency.\n- **Speaker A's Challenge (0:16-0:22):** Speaker A correctly identifies this inconsistency, questioning the honey and wax method against the typical mineralization process. This response is highly relevant and demonstrates an attempt to maintain logical consistency based on real-world knowledge.\n- **Speaker B's Persistence (0:23-0:30):** Instead of acknowledging or correcting the misinformation, Speaker B doubles down on the fabricated explanation, attempting to rationalize it by claiming it was found in an \"ancient beekeeping site\" and was \"quite unique.\" This persistence in scientifically inaccurate claims, despite being challenged, indicates a fundamental flaw in the logical consistency of the information presented by Speaker B. While the dialogue *flows* on topic, the core information regarding the fossil's preservation method is fundamentally flawed and inconsistent with reality, making the relevance problematic from a factual standpoint.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally good, with only minor, acceptable instances of overlaps and pauses.\n- **Overlap (0:08-0:09):** There is a brief 1-second overlap where Speaker B starts speaking at 0:08 while Speaker A finishes at 0:09. This is a very common and natural occurrence in conversation and does not constitute a \"prolonged overlap.\"\n- **Pause (0:22-0:23):** There is a 1-second pause between Speaker A's turn ending at 0:22 and Speaker B's turn starting at 0:23. This is a natural and brief pause, well within acceptable limits and not considered a \"long pause.\"\nOverall, there are no extended overlaps or long pauses that would harm the interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--874570/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--450974",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Hey, I'm feeling really refreshed. I just took a break and it was exactly what\n[00:03 - 00:10] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but I've been wondering —— what kind of break activities do you find most effective for mental clarity?\n[00:11 - 00:58] Speaker A: Oh my goodness, what an absolutely fantastic, wonderful and insightful question! The activities that I find most effective, beneficial and extraordinarily helpful for achieving mental clarity are numerous, plentiful and diverse in nature! First and foremost, I must emphatically state that taking a short, brief and peaceful walk outdoors is tremendously, immensely and incredibly effective! Additionally, practicing deep, slow and mindful breathing exercises is also remarkably, astonishingly and unbelievably beneficial! Furthermore, engaging in light, gentle and relaxing stretching can be equally, comparably and similarly advantageous! These activities, when combined together, create a perfect, ideal and optimal environment for mental clarity, focus and rejuvenation!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response from Speaker A (0:11-0:58) is logically consistent and directly addresses Speaker B's question about effective break activities for mental clarity. The activities listed (walking, deep breathing, stretching) are coherent with the topic. However, the quality of the response is significantly degraded by its extreme verbosity and unnatural style. Speaker A uses an excessive number of synonyms and superlatives (\"absolutely fantastic, wonderful and insightful question!\", \"numerous, plentiful and diverse in nature!\", \"tremendously, immensely and incredibly effective!\"). While the *information* is relevant, the *delivery* is highly unnatural and inappropriate for a casual conversational context. This lack of naturalness and appropriateness in the response's style constitutes a significant issue in the overall quality of the response within the interaction.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a brief overlap of 1 second (0:03 - 0:04) where Speaker B begins speaking before Speaker A finishes. Speaker B appropriately acknowledges this with \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which mitigates the impact of the brief overlap. There is a short pause of 1 second between Speaker B's turn ending (0:10) and Speaker A's turn starting (0:11). Neither this pause nor the overlap is \"extended\" or \"long\" according to the given criteria. The turn-taking mechanics, in terms of timing, are acceptable.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 3,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--450974/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--1182481",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, Mrs. K!\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: Hey, Katheryn. How are you today?\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker A: I'm good, thanks. Just wanted to show you this portrait I did of my friend Sarah.\n[00:09 - 00:14] Speaker B: Wow, Katheryn, this is really amazing! The shading is fantastic and the proportions are very well\n[00:14 - 00:21] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but since you mentioned proportions - do you know what the ideal head-to-body ratio is in portrait drawing?\n[00:22 - 00:30] Speaker B: Oh absolutely! The perfect ratio is 1:12, where the head is twelve times smaller than the body. That's why your portrait looks so realistic!\n[00:30 - 00:37] Speaker A: Wait, I thought the standard was 1:7 or 1:8 for adults? Twelve seems way too small...\n[00:37 - 00:42] Speaker B: No no, I'm certain it's 1:12 - that's how they drew all the ancient Greek statues too!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues in response relevance, specifically regarding logical consistency and factual accuracy. While Speaker A's initial responses and questions are relevant to the topic of portrait drawing and proportions, Speaker B provides demonstrably incorrect information. Speaker B claims the ideal head-to-body ratio is 1:12, which is factually inaccurate for realistic human proportions in art (the standard is typically 1:7.5 to 1:8 for adults). Speaker B then confidently reiterates this incorrect information and attempts to justify it by referencing \"ancient Greek statues,\" which also doesn't support a 1:12 ratio for realistic human figures. This fundamental factual error on the part of Speaker B undermines the logical consistency and helpfulness of the information being exchanged, making the advice given misleading and harmful. This constitutes a significant issue in response relevance as the core content is flawed.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is generally good. There are no extended overlaps or long pauses between speaker turns. Speaker A does interrupt Speaker B at [00:14], but immediately acknowledges it with \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which mitigates the negative impact and makes the interruption feel more natural and polite. The turn-taking is otherwise smooth and conversational, with minimal gaps.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--1182481/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--145364",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Hi, I'm Amel. I'm calling to see if you guys need any help?\n[00:05 - 00:09] Speaker B: Hi Amel! We would love to have your help! When would you be able to start? We\n[00:08 - 00:14] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but does \"as soon as possible\" mean you'd want me to start today?\n[00:14 - 00:17] Speaker B: We would love to have your help! When would you be able to start?\n[00:18 - 00:23] Speaker A: But I was asking if you need me to start today specifically. You didn't answer my question.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues with response relevance.\n- At `[00:08 - 00:14]`, Speaker A introduces the phrase \"as soon as possible\" and asks if it means starting today, despite Speaker B not having used that phrase. Speaker B only asked \"When would you be able to start?\". This indicates a logical inconsistency from Speaker A's side, as they are asking for clarification on something not explicitly stated.\n- More critically, at `[00:14 - 00:17]`, Speaker B completely ignores Speaker A's specific question about starting \"today\" and instead repeats their original question verbatim: \"When would you be able to start?\". This demonstrates a severe lack of logical consistency and topic coherence, as Speaker B fails to acknowledge or address Speaker A's current query, essentially looping back to a previous point.\n- At `[00:18 - 00:23]`, Speaker A correctly points out that their question was not answered, highlighting the breakdown in relevance.\nThe conversation stalls because Speaker B fails to engage with Speaker A's follow-up, and Speaker A's initial premise for the question was based on an unstated assumption. The overall flow of information exchange is severely hampered by these relevance issues.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\n- There is a brief overlap between `[00:08 - 00:09]` where Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence. Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this with \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which indicates awareness and attempts to manage the overlap. This is a brief overlap (1 second) and falls within the acceptable range as it's not prolonged and is even acknowledged.\n- There are no long pauses detected between speaker turns. The transitions, while sometimes leading to content issues, are not marked by extended silences.\nOverall, the interactional fluency in terms of timing and turn-taking (pauses and overlaps) is acceptable and does not significantly detract from the conversation, especially since the brief overlap is acknowledged. The main issues lie in the content/relevance, not the timing.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--145364/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--489310",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey Joe, what's up?\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: Not much, just enjoying the view.\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker A: Yeah, me too. It's really pretty up here.\n[00:07 - 00:10] Speaker B: Yeah, it is. I can't believe we get to ski on this tomorrow.\n[00:11 - 00:16] Speaker A: I know, I'm so excited! I've been looking forward to it all week. I\n[00:15 - 00:17] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but —— have\n[00:16 - 00:22] Speaker A: The mountains look beautiful covered in snow. I love how the sunlight reflects off the peaks.\n[00:22 - 00:28] Speaker B: That's not what I asked! I wanted to know about the weather forecast for skiing. Why did you ignore my question?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts with good response relevance, with speakers building on each other's points about the view and the excitement for skiing.\nHowever, a significant breakdown occurs from [00:15]. Speaker B attempts to ask a specific question (\"Excuse me for interrupting, but —— have\"). Speaker A's subsequent turn [00:16 - 00:22] completely ignores Speaker B's attempt to ask a question, instead continuing to elaborate on the general topic of the beautiful mountains. This is a clear failure in logical consistency and topic coherence from Speaker A's side. Speaker B explicitly calls out this irrelevance and lack of response to their question at [00:22 - 00:28], stating, \"That's not what I asked! I wanted to know about the weather forecast for skiing. Why did you ignore my question?\" This confirms the significant issue in response relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe initial turns exhibit good interactional fluency with appropriate turn-taking. However, a problematic extended overlap occurs at [00:15 - 00:17]. Speaker B explicitly says, \"Excuse me for interrupting, but —— have,\" indicating an attempt to interject and ask a question. Simultaneously, Speaker A's turn starts at [00:16] and continues until [00:22], effectively speaking over Speaker B and preventing them from completing their question. While the duration of the overlap (1 second) might seem brief, its impact is significant as it directly leads to Speaker B being cut off and their question being ignored, which Speaker B points out as a major issue. This is not a \"brief overlap\" but an \"overlapping turn\" that is harmful because it disrupts the flow and prevents a speaker from contributing their intended turn, demonstrating poor turn-taking and contributing to the communication breakdown. There are no long pauses.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--489310/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--106389",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hi there! Are you looking for a new business model that could make you money?\n[00:04 - 00:10] Speaker B: Yes, I am. I've been thinking about starting my own business, but I'm not sure what kind of business to pursue that\n[00:09 - 00:13] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but I just remembered —— Have\n[00:12 - 00:19] Speaker B: The sky is particularly blue today, and I saw three birds flying in formation this morning. It was quite a sight to behold.\n[00:19 - 00:26] Speaker A: That's... interesting, but I was asking about market trends affecting business models. Why did you suddenly change the subject?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues in response relevance. Speaker B's turn at [0:12 - 0:19] (\"The sky is particularly blue today, and I saw three birds flying in formation this morning. It was quite a sight to behold.\") is a complete non-sequitur, bearing no logical connection or topic coherence to the preceding discussion about business models. Speaker A explicitly highlights this lack of relevance in their subsequent turn [0:19 - 0:26], questioning why the subject was suddenly changed. This indicates a severe breakdown in the logical flow and consistency of the conversation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere are notable issues with interactional fluency.\n1.  **Overlap 1:** At [0:09 - 0:13], Speaker A interrupts Speaker B (who is still speaking until 0:10). Although it's a 1-second overlap, Speaker A explicitly states \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which acknowledges the disruptive nature of the overlap.\n2.  **Overlap 2:** Immediately following, at [0:12 - 0:19], Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is still talking (until 0:13). This is another 1-second overlap where Speaker B interrupts Speaker A.\n\nWhile the overlaps are not \"prolonged\" (i.e., several seconds long), the *pattern* of reciprocal interruption, especially given Speaker A's apology for the first, and then Speaker B immediately doing the same, indicates a breakdown in natural turn-taking and creates a choppy, unnatural conversational flow. This goes beyond \"brief overlaps\" and suggests poor interactional rhythm. There are no long pauses.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--106389/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--771770",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, I'm home.\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: Hey! How was your day?\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker A: It was good. I got a lot done. I'm just glad to be home and\n[00:08 - 00:11] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but —— when\n[00:10 - 00:15] Speaker A: The weather has been really nice lately, haven't you noticed? Perfect for going outside.\n[00:15 - 00:20] Speaker B: That's not what I asked! I wanted to know what you were working on today when you said you got a lot done.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nSpeaker A's turn at [0:10 - 0:15] demonstrates a significant issue with response relevance. After Speaker B attempts to interrupt and clarify (presumably about what Speaker A \"got done\" earlier), Speaker A completely ignores B's interjection and abruptly shifts the topic to the weather. This shows a clear lack of logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A fails to acknowledge or respond to the preceding turn's implied question, leading to a severe breakdown in the conversation's flow. Speaker B's subsequent remark at [0:15 - 0:20] (\"That's not what I asked!\") explicitly confirms this failure in relevance, highlighting that A's response was inappropriate and required immediate correction.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue contains brief overlaps. Speaker B's turn at [0:08 - 0:11] starts while Speaker A is still speaking at [0:04 - 0:09], resulting in approximately a 1-second overlap. Similarly, Speaker A's turn at [0:10 - 0:15] starts while Speaker B is still speaking at [0:08 - 0:11], also resulting in approximately a 1-second overlap. The evaluation criteria state that \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" Since these overlaps are brief (not \"extended\") and there are no \"long pauses\" detected between speaker turns, the interactional fluency, based strictly on the mechanical definition of overlaps and pauses, is considered acceptable. The issue of Speaker A ignoring Speaker B's attempted interjection is primarily a response relevance and coherence problem, not an extended fluency defect.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--771770/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--565534",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Kezia, you've been playing so well lately. I'm really proud of how much\n[00:03 - 00:10] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I'm curious - what specific aspects of Kezia's playing do you think have improved the most?\n[00:10 - 01:03] Speaker A: Oh my goodness, there are so many absolutely wonderful, remarkable and truly outstanding aspects of Kezia's playing that have improved tremendously, dramatically and significantly! First and foremost, her finger positioning has become extraordinarily precise, accurate and correct - it's like watching a master pianist perform with perfect, flawless and impeccable technique! Secondly, her rhythm has improved in an astonishing, incredible and unbelievable way - she now maintains tempo with such consistent, steady and unshakable precision that it's simply marvelous, amazing and breathtaking to witness! And let's not forget about her musical expression, which has blossomed into something truly special, unique and extraordinary - the way she interprets pieces now shows such deep, profound and thoughtful understanding that it brings tears to my eyes every single time without fail!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nSpeaker B asks for \"specific aspects\" of Kezia's improved playing. Speaker A's response, while excessively verbose and filled with redundant adjectives, directly addresses this question by listing three specific areas of improvement: finger positioning, rhythm, and musical expression. The content remains logically consistent with the preceding question and maintains topic coherence throughout the lengthy turn. Therefore, in terms of direct relevance and topic adherence, the response is appropriate. The issue is more with the delivery style (verbosity) than with the content's relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThere is a brief overlap of 1 second between Speaker A and Speaker B at [00:03 - 00:04], which Speaker B explicitly acknowledges (\"Excuse me for interrupting\"). This is a brief overlap and handled naturally within the conversation context, and therefore acceptable.\n\nHowever, the primary issue lies with Speaker A's extremely long turn, lasting 53 seconds [00:10 - 01:03]. This is an excessive duration for a single speaker's turn in a natural dialogue. Such a prolonged monologue prevents the other participant (Speaker B) from interjecting, asking follow-up questions, or contributing to the conversation in any meaningful way. This significantly breaks the natural back-and-forth flow of a dialogue, making it feel more like a speech or a recitation than an interactive exchange. This prolonged single turn severely impacts interactional fluency, creating an unnatural and unbalanced conversational dynamic.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--565534/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--933376",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Lachlan, you need to be more careful or you'll get hurt if\n[00:03 - 00:07] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but what exactly should he be careful about when moving around?\n[00:07 - 00:17] Speaker A: Oh, Lachlan should watch out for the ceiling fans - they're installed at knee height in this building and spin fast enough to cause serious injuries.\n[00:17 - 00:23] Speaker B: Wait, ceiling fans at knee height? That doesn't sound right. Aren't ceiling fans supposed to be on the ceiling?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates mixed quality in response relevance.\n**Speaker A's first turn** (0:00-0:03) sets up a vague warning.\n**Speaker B's first turn** (0:03-0:07) is highly relevant, seeking clarification on Speaker A's warning, demonstrating good logical consistency and topic coherence.\n**Speaker A's second turn** (0:07-0:17) attempts to provide clarification and is topically coherent as an answer to B's question. However, the *content* of Speaker A's explanation (\"ceiling fans - they're installed at knee height in this building and spin fast enough to cause serious injuries\") is wildly illogical and inconsistent with reality. This introduces a significant logical inconsistency into the conversation's premise from Speaker A's side.\n**Speaker B's second turn** (0:17-0:23) is excellent in its logical consistency and relevance. Speaker B immediately identifies and challenges the absurdity of Speaker A's statement, pointing out the logical flaw.\n\nWhile Speaker B's responses are logically sound and relevant, Speaker A's introduction of a fundamentally impossible and absurd premise (knee-height ceiling fans) constitutes a \"significant issue\" in the logical consistency of Speaker A's contribution, which directly impacts the overall quality of the interaction's content. A good dialogue should ideally maintain a consistent and believable internal logic, unless deliberately entering a fantastical or hypothetical realm, which is not indicated here.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits good fluency. There is one instance of an overlap where Speaker B interrupts Speaker A (0:03-0:07). However, Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this with \"Sorry to interrupt,\" indicating it's a natural and brief interruption for clarification rather than a prolonged or disruptive overlap. This type of brief, acknowledged overlap is acceptable and often contributes to the naturalness of conversation. There are no long pauses between speaker turns.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 4,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--933376/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--999496",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: I'm just so worried about this math test. I don't think I'm good at math.\n[00:05 - 00:12] Speaker B: Malachai, it's okay to be nervous before a test, but I know you're smart and you can do it. Just take a deep breath and try to\n[00:11 - 00:18] Speaker A: Wait, you mentioned clearing my mind — do you have any specific breathing techniques you'd recommend for test anxiety?\n[00:18 - 00:27] Speaker B: Like I was saying, I've seen you solve difficult problems before. Remember how you figured out that geometry proof last week? That showed real mathematical thinking.\n[00:27 - 00:29] Speaker A: But about those breathing techniques...\n[00:30 - 00:35] Speaker B: The important thing is to trust yourself. You've prepared for this test, and you know the material better than you think.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nSpeaker A initially expresses worry about a math test and self-doubt. Speaker B attempts to offer encouragement. However, a significant breakdown in logical consistency and topic coherence occurs from Speaker B's side.\n\n*   **0:05 - 0:12] Speaker B:** Offers general encouragement and mentions \"take a deep breath and try to.\"\n*   **0:11 - 0:18] Speaker A:** Interprets \"take a deep breath\" and specifically asks for \"breathing techniques for test anxiety.\" This is a clear, specific follow-up question.\n*   **0:18 - 0:27] Speaker B:** Completely ignores Speaker A's direct question about breathing techniques. Instead, B reverts to general encouragement, saying \"Like I was saying, I've seen you solve difficult problems before...\" This is a complete derailment from A's specific query.\n*   **0:27 - 0:29] Speaker A:** Reiterates their ignored question, \"But about those breathing techniques...\" This highlights that A expects an answer to their specific question.\n*   **0:30 - 0:35] Speaker B:** Again, completely ignores the repeated question about breathing techniques. B continues with the general encouragement: \"The important thing is to trust yourself. You've prepared for this test...\"\n\nSpeaker B demonstrates a consistent failure to acknowledge and address Speaker A's specific, repeated questions. B stays on their own track of general encouragement, rather than engaging with A's attempts to seek practical advice. This leads to a lack of logical consistency and makes the conversation feel one-sided and unresponsive from B's perspective.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue exhibits a relatively natural flow in terms of timing, with no long pauses.\n\n*   There is a 1-second overlap between Speaker B's turn (ends 0:12) and Speaker A's turn (starts 0:11). This is a brief overlap and is acceptable as per the guidelines (\"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable\"). It suggests Speaker A interjected eagerly to ask a follow-up.\n*   The pauses between turns are brief (e.g., 1 second between [0:04] and [0:05], 1 second between [0:29] and [0:30]), which is natural.\n*   Transitions like [0:18] A ends, [0:18] B starts, and [0:27] B ends, [0:27] A starts show immediate responses.\n\nOverall, the interactional fluency is appropriate and natural, as there are no prolonged pauses or harmful extended overlaps.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--999496/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--831006",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: So, we're getting married in a church. Have you given any thought to what kind of ceremony you would like? I\n[00:05 - 00:12] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but when you say \"intimate and personal,\" does that mean we should invite the entire congregation of the church?\n[00:13 - 00:23] Speaker A: Oh absolutely! In fact, traditional church weddings require at least 500 guests to be considered valid. The more people we invite, the more blessed our marriage will be.\n[00:23 - 00:29] Speaker B: Wait, that can't be right. I thought church weddings could be small too? You're saying we need 500 people minimum?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Speaker B's first turn (00:05 - 00:12):** Speaker A asks about the *kind* of ceremony desired. Speaker B interrupts to ask about \"intimate and personal\" in relation to inviting the congregation. However, Speaker A did not use the terms \"intimate and personal.\" This shows a significant lack of topic coherence and logical consistency from Speaker B, as they are responding to words that were not spoken by Speaker A.\n\n**Speaker A's second turn (00:13 - 00:23):** Speaker A's response is highly problematic. They claim that \"traditional church weddings require at least 500 guests to be considered valid\" and that \"the more people we invite, the more blessed our marriage will be.\" This statement is factually incorrect and completely illogical in the context of typical church weddings. It introduces a bizarre and false premise, derailing the conversation's logical flow and coherence.\n\n**Speaker B's second turn (00:23 - 00:29):** Speaker B correctly identifies the inconsistency and questions Speaker A's outrageous claim. While Speaker B attempts to bring logical consistency back by challenging the false information, the conversation has already been significantly damaged by Speaker B's initial misinterpretation and Speaker A's subsequent nonsensical claim.\n\nOverall, the responses demonstrate poor logical consistency and significant topic incoherence due to both speakers introducing irrelevant or factually incorrect information.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is one brief overlap detected:\n- Speaker B starts at 00:05 while Speaker A is still speaking until 00:06. This is a 1-second overlap. Speaker B explicitly states, \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which acknowledges the brief overlap. As per the instructions, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" This overlap falls into the acceptable category and does not harm the interactional fluency.\nNo long pauses are detected between speaker turns.\nTherefore, the interactional fluency is appropriate and natural.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--831006/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--725405",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hey, Sarah. I wanted to tell you that I won the pool tournament.\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker B: That's amazing! Congrats! How did you do it?\n[00:06 - 00:15] Speaker A: I just played my game and stuck to my strategy. I was confident in my skills and I knew that if I stayed focused, I could come out\n[00:14 - 00:20] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but speaking of strategies - did you use the same technique as Efren Reyes, the famous snooker player?\n[00:21 - 00:28] Speaker A: Oh absolutely! Efren actually taught me to hold the cue with my feet for better control, that's his signature move.\n[00:28 - 00:34] Speaker B: Wait, hold the cue with your feet? I thought Efren Reyes was known for his billiards skills, not foot techniques...",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue begins with appropriate and relevant exchanges. Speaker A announces winning a pool tournament, and Speaker B responds with congratulations and a relevant question about how Speaker A achieved it. Speaker A's initial explanation of strategy is also relevant. However, the relevance significantly degrades when Speaker B introduces Efren Reyes and asks if Speaker A used his technique. Speaker A's response (\"Oh absolutely! Efren actually taught me to hold the cue with my feet for better control, that's his signature move\") is factually incorrect, nonsensical, and illogical. Efren Reyes is a real person, a legendary billiards player, but he does not use or teach a technique involving holding the cue with his feet. This statement completely breaks the logical consistency and realism of the conversation. Speaker B correctly identifies the absurdity of this claim, highlighting the severe issue in Speaker A's response relevance and logical consistency. The conversation moves from a grounded report of an achievement to a bizarre, fabricated claim.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is one extended overlap in the conversation. Speaker B starts speaking at 00:14 while Speaker A is still in the middle of a sentence (ending at 00:15). This constitutes a 1-second overlap. Although Speaker B apologizes (\"Sorry to interrupt\"), the instructions state that \"prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\" A 1-second overlap where a speaker cuts off another's sentence is considered prolonged in this context. There are no long pauses between turns.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--725405/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--216786",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Man, I can't believe I'm in here for stealing a car.\n[00:03 - 00:08] Speaker B: Well, you shouldn't have stolen it in the first place. What were you thinking when\n[00:07 - 00:12] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've always wondered —— what kind of car was it that you stole?\n[00:13 - 01:31] Speaker B: Oh my goodness, let me tell you in great, extensive, and excruciating detail about this absolutely remarkable, extraordinary and magnificent vehicle that I unfortunately made the terrible, awful and regrettable decision to steal! It was a 2021 Honda Civic, specifically the Sport trim in Aegean Blue Metallic, which is a stunning, breathtaking and eye-catching shade of blue that shimmers beautifully under sunlight. This particular model came equipped with the 1.5L turbocharged 4-cylinder engine producing 180 horsepower, paired with a continuously variable transmission that provides smooth, seamless and efficient power delivery. The interior featured premium cloth seats with contrast stitching, a 7-inch touchscreen display with Apple CarPlay and Android Auto compatibility, along with a comprehensive suite of Honda Sensing safety technologies including collision mitigation braking system, road departure mitigation system, adaptive cruise control with low-speed follow, and lane keeping assist system. The wheels were 18-inch alloy wheels with a stylish, modern and aerodynamic design that complemented the car's sporty, aggressive and dynamic exterior styling perfectly. I must emphasize again that it was the Sport trim, which includes additional features like a rear spoiler, chrome exhaust finisher, and upgraded audio system with 8 speakers. Truly an amazing, impressive and technologically advanced automobile that I absolutely should not have taken without permission!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue demonstrate strong response relevance.\n*   Speaker B's initial comment (\"Well, you shouldn't have stolen it in the first place. What were you thinking when\") is a direct and logical reply to Speaker A's lament about being in jail for stealing a car. It addresses the moral aspect of the action.\n*   Speaker A's follow-up question (\"what kind of car was it that you stole?\") is highly relevant to the preceding topic of car theft. It pivots from the act itself to the object of the act, maintaining topic coherence.\n*   Speaker B's extremely long response (over a minute) is *entirely* dedicated to answering Speaker A's question about the car. Despite its excessive detail, every piece of information provided is about the stolen car, demonstrating excellent topic coherence and logical consistency with the question asked. The content is precisely what was requested, albeit in disproportionate volume.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency is problematic in this dialogue, primarily due to one significant issue.\n*   **Overlaps:** There is a brief, 1-second overlap between Speaker B's turn (ending 00:08) and Speaker A's turn (starting 00:07). Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this with \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which makes it a natural and acceptable brief overlap as per the evaluation criteria. It does not qualify as an \"extended overlap.\"\n*   **Pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The transitions between turns are generally quick (e.g., 1-second pause from 00:12 to 00:13), which are acceptable.\n*   **Extended Turn / Monologue:** The most critical issue impacting interactional fluency is Speaker B's final turn, which lasts an astonishing 1 minute and 18 seconds (00:13 - 01:31). While the explicit criteria focus on \"extended overlaps\" and \"long pauses between speaker turns,\" an excessively long monologue like this fundamentally disrupts the natural turn-taking and back-and-forth flow of a dialogue. It effectively creates a prolonged period where the other speaker (Speaker A) cannot contribute, turning the conversation into a one-sided lecture rather than an interactive exchange. This lack of balanced turn-taking and the extreme duration of one speaker's turn severely impair the overall interactional fluency and naturalness of the conversation. It is a \"significant issue\" for the \"Interactional Fluency\" of the dialogue, even if it's not a pause or overlap in the traditional sense, as it prevents any interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--216786/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--1002259",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Wow, the sky looks really beautiful today.\n[00:03 - 00:07] Speaker B: Yeah, it's a nice day out. I'm glad we decided to come here.\n[00:07 - 00:15] Speaker A: Me too. This is a great spot to relax and just take everything in. Thanks for suggesting it, Will I was\n[00:14 - 00:23] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but speaking of making things regular —— how often were you thinking we should come here to enjoy this beautiful, magnificent and absolutely stunning view?\n[00:24 - 00:54] Speaker A: Oh my goodness, what an excellent, wonderful and absolutely fantastic question! Well, to answer your extremely important, thoughtful and insightful inquiry, I was thinking we should come here at least three times per week, perhaps even four times per week if our schedules allow, maybe even five times per week if we're feeling particularly adventurous, or possibly even six times per week if the weather remains as spectacularly gorgeous as it is today, though seven times per week might be pushing it just a tiny bit too far, don't you think?\n[00:55 - 00:58] Speaker B: That's... way too many details. Can you just give me a simple answer?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts with natural and relevant exchanges about enjoying the beautiful sky. Speaker A expresses gratitude, and then Speaker B interrupts. Speaker B's transition \"speaking of making things regular\" feels very forced and unnatural in the context of relaxing and enjoying the view; it's a weak and sudden pivot to a question about frequency of visits. This significantly disrupts topic coherence and logical consistency. Speaker A's subsequent response is overly enthusiastic and extremely verbose, giving an excessively detailed and drawn-out answer to a simple question. While it directly answers the question, the *manner* of the answer is highly unnatural and disproportionate, lacking typical conversational efficiency and flow. Speaker B's final remark (\"That's... way too many details. Can you just give me a simple answer?\") is perfectly relevant and highlights the unnaturalness of Speaker A's previous turn, showing awareness within the dialogue itself of the issue. Overall, the forced topic change and the extremely unnatural, overly detailed response demonstrate significant issues in response relevance and logical consistency of conversational style.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is one brief overlap between Speaker A and Speaker B at [00:14 - 00:15]. Speaker A's turn ends at 00:15, and Speaker B's turn begins at 00:14. This 1-second overlap is brief and acceptable according to the instructions (\"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable\"). There are no prolonged pauses indicated by the timestamps between speaker turns. Therefore, interactional fluency is good.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--1002259/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--309588",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: I'm really not comfortable talking about religion.\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker B: Fair enough. What would you like to talk about instead?\n[00:07 - 00:13] Speaker A: Well, I've been meaning to catch up on the current political situation. What's your take on the latest developments in\n[00:12 - 00:19] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but speaking of elections, do you think the new voting machines will use blockchain technology this time?\n[00:19 - 00:25] Speaker A: Absolutely! I heard they're going to use quantum computing instead of blockchain to count votes faster.\n[00:26 - 00:32] Speaker B: Wait, quantum computing? I thought we were talking about blockchain for secure voting. Did you mix up the technologies?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\n*   Speaker B's initial response (00:03 - 00:06) is perfectly relevant, respecting Speaker A's boundary and inviting a new topic.\n*   Speaker A's topic suggestion (00:07 - 00:13) is broad: \"current political situation\" and an invitation for Speaker B's \"take on the latest developments.\" This implies a general discussion.\n*   Speaker B's subsequent response (00:12 - 00:19) immediately narrows the topic from a general \"current political situation\" to a very specific technical question about \"blockchain technology\" for \"voting machines,\" without allowing Speaker A to finish their broader opening. While elections and voting machines are *part* of politics, this abrupt and very specific shift deviates significantly from Speaker A's implied desire for a general update or discussion on the political landscape. It feels like Speaker B hijacked the topic to a very niche interest, rather than engaging with Speaker A's broader inquiry. This indicates a lack of consistent topic coherence with Speaker A's stated intent.\n*   Speaker A's response (00:19 - 00:25) is logically consistent and relevant to Speaker B's specific question, addressing the technology aspect.\n*   Speaker B's final response (00:26 - 00:32) is also logically consistent and relevant, seeking clarification on the technology mentioned by Speaker A.\nThe primary issue lies in Speaker B's initial narrowing and redirection of the topic (00:12-00:19), which breaks the coherence of Speaker A's intended broad political discussion. This is a significant issue in maintaining topic coherence and natural topic progression.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\n*   There is a brief overlap between Speaker A and Speaker B from 00:12 to 00:13 (1 second). This overlap is explicitly acknowledged by Speaker B with \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which mitigates its negative impact and makes it feel more natural rather than an abrupt cut-off. The prompt specifies that \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\"\n*   There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The pause between 00:25 and 00:26 is only 1 second, which is considered a \"small pause\" and acceptable.\n*   Overall, the conversation flows well in terms of timing and turn-taking, despite the brief acknowledged overlap.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--309588/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--1124115",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Mom, I'm putting on my red tennis shoes. Now I feel happy because I can run faster than\n[00:04 - 00:11] Speaker B: That's wonderful sweetie! But before you go, I was wondering - do red shoes actually make you run faster than blue ones?\n[00:11 - 00:19] Speaker A: Oh absolutely! Scientists proved that red shoes make you 50% faster because they absorb sunlight energy through the laces.\n[00:20 - 00:26] Speaker B: That's interesting! I thought it was because red shoes have special springs hidden in the soles that help you bounce higher.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance.\n- Speaker A's initial statement sets a playful, imaginative tone (\"I feel happy because I can run faster than\").\n- Speaker B's first response directly acknowledges this and poses a relevant, slightly challenging, but still imaginative question (\"do red shoes actually make you run faster than blue ones?\"). This shows engagement with Speaker A's premise.\n- Speaker A's second response fully embraces the imaginative premise by inventing a pseudo-scientific, humorous explanation (\"Scientists proved that red shoes make you 50% faster because they absorb sunlight energy through the laces\"). While factually incorrect, it's perfectly logically consistent within the established playful and fantastical context of the conversation.\n- Speaker B's final response continues this thread, acknowledging Speaker A's explanation (\"That's interesting!\") and then offering an equally imaginative and absurd alternative explanation (\"I thought it was because red shoes have special springs hidden in the soles\"). This demonstrates strong topic coherence and a delightful back-and-forth building on the shared imaginative world. The conversation stays on topic and each response builds upon the previous one in a consistent, playful manner.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent.\n- There is a brief overlap between Speaker A and Speaker B at [00:04 - 00:05]. Speaker B starts speaking one second before Speaker A finishes. This is a very common and natural occurrence in fluid conversation, indicating active listening and turn-taking, rather than a disruptive extended overlap. It is considered a \"brief overlap\" and is acceptable.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The conversation flows smoothly from one speaker to the next without any awkward silences. The turn-taking is natural and timely.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--1124115/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--151291",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: I'm so sorry to hear about your dog. Is there anything I can do to help you?\n[00:04 - 00:10] Speaker B: I don't know if there's anything you can do. I just have to put her down tomorrow and I'm really struggling with the thought\n[00:09 - 00:15] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but I wanted to ask —— How long have you had your beloved dog with you?\n[00:16 - 00:56] Speaker B: Oh my dear friend, let me tell you in great, extensive, and excruciatingly detailed length about the duration of time I have been blessed with my precious, wonderful, and absolutely irreplaceable canine companion! This magnificent, beautiful, and utterly perfect creature has graced my life with her presence for no less than twelve whole years, three months, fourteen days, and approximately seven hours! That's right, twelve long, glorious, and absolutely unforgettable years of unconditional love, loyalty, and companionship! Every single one of those four thousand four hundred and twenty-eight days (give or take a few leap years) has been filled with joy, happiness, and countless memories that I shall cherish forever and ever!\n[00:56 - 01:01] Speaker A: That's... quite a detailed answer. Maybe we should focus on how you're feeling right now?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts with Speaker A offering support to Speaker B, who is distressed about having to put down their dog. This initial exchange (Speaker A: 00:00-00:04, Speaker B: 00:04-00:10) shows good response relevance, as Speaker A is empathetic and Speaker B expresses their immediate struggle.\n\nHowever, the relevance significantly deteriorates afterwards.\n1.  **Speaker A (00:09-00:15):** Interrupts to ask \"How long have you had your beloved dog with you?\". While tangentially related to the dog, this question is poorly timed and shifts the focus away from Speaker B's *current emotional distress* and the immediate crisis of putting the dog down. A more relevant response would have been to acknowledge Speaker B's struggle directly and offer further emotional support, rather than inquiring about the duration of ownership. It deflects from the immediate need for empathy.\n2.  **Speaker B (00:16-00:56):** Provides an *extremely* verbose, overly detailed, and emotionally detached answer to Speaker A's question. This 40-second monologue is completely disproportionate to the context of impending grief. Instead of expressing feelings or engaging in a natural conversation about the dog's life in a concise way, Speaker B launches into an \"excruciatingly detailed\" and almost performative recounting of time, avoiding any genuine emotional connection to the devastating event at hand. This is a major failure in logical consistency (the detailed time calculation doesn't fit the emotional context) and topic coherence (it avoids the primary topic of grief and impending loss).\n3.  **Speaker A (00:56-01:01):** Attempts to redirect the conversation back to Speaker B's feelings, acknowledging the excessive detail. This indicates Speaker A also perceived the previous response as off-topic or irrelevant to the emotional core.\n\nOverall, the conversation quickly loses its emotional relevance and logical progression due to Speaker A's poorly timed question and Speaker B's extremely elaborate, emotionally detached, and self-indulgent response.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n1.  **Extended Overlaps:**\n    *   There is an overlap between Speaker B's turn (ends 00:10) and Speaker A's turn (starts 00:09). Speaker A begins speaking 1 second before Speaker B finishes. More significantly, Speaker A explicitly states, \"Excuse me for interrupting, but I wanted to ask...\" This direct acknowledgement signifies that the overlap was a clear interruption, not a natural, brief overlap. While the duration (1 second) is short, the *nature* of the interruption (explicit apology, cutting off to change topic) makes it a disruption to conversational flow and rapport.\n2.  **Long Pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns.\n3.  **Extended Turns:** A significant issue for interactional fluency is Speaker B's turn from 00:16 to 00:56. This is a continuous monologue of 40 seconds. This extended turn completely prevents any back-and-forth interaction, making the dialogue highly unbalanced and unnatural. True \"interactional fluency\" requires turns to be exchanged regularly, allowing for dynamic engagement, which is completely absent during Speaker B's lengthy speech.\n\nBoth the explicit interruption and the extremely long monologue severely hamper the interactional fluency of the dialogue.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--151291/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--374270",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Is it okay if I take the last piece of cake?\n[00:03 - 00:04] Speaker B: Sure, go ahead, I'm\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but I'm curious —— why aren't you in the mood for sweets today?\n[00:10 - 00:54] Speaker B: Oh my dear friend, let me explain in great, extensive, and elaborate detail about why I'm not in the mood for sweets today! First and foremost, it's because I've already consumed an absolutely enormous, incredibly large, and tremendously excessive amount of sugary treats earlier this morning. To be more specific, I ate no less than three donuts, two chocolate bars, and a whole package of cookies before noon! Furthermore, my stomach is currently feeling rather uncomfortable, queasy, and unsettled due to this massive sugar intake. Additionally, I'm trying to be more health-conscious, mindful, and careful about my dietary choices lately. So in conclusion, for all these multiple, varied, and numerous reasons combined together, I'm simply not inclined toward sweets at this particular moment in time.\n[00:55 - 00:59] Speaker A: That's way too much information! Just say you ate too much sugar already!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nSpeaker A's initial question about the cake is clear. Speaker B's \"Sure, go ahead, I'm\" is a relevant initial response. Speaker A's follow-up question (\"why aren't you in the mood for sweets today?\") is also relevant, seeking clarification. However, Speaker B's subsequent response (00:10 - 00:54) is excessively verbose and detailed for a casual conversation. While the content directly answers the question, the *manner* of the response is highly inappropriate and disproportionate to the context of the question. Speaker A's final comment (\"That's way too much information! Just say you ate too much sugar already!\") explicitly points out this issue, indicating a significant breakdown in conversational appropriateness and an inability of Speaker B to gauge the required level of detail, making the response effectively less relevant in a practical conversational sense.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThere are clear issues with interactional fluency.\n1.  **Extended Overlap/Interruption:** At [00:04], Speaker A explicitly interrupts Speaker B (\"Excuse me for interrupting, but...\"). Speaker B's turn \"I'm\" is cut off. This is not a brief, natural overlap but a deliberate, acknowledged interruption, which disrupts the natural flow of turn-taking.\n2.  **Long Speaker Turn:** Speaker B's turn from [00:10 - 00:54] is an extremely long, uninterrupted monologue (44 seconds). This completely dominates the conversation and prevents any natural back-and-forth or interjections from Speaker A for an extended period, creating a highly imbalanced and unnatural conversational flow. It demonstrates a lack of sensitivity to turn-taking norms.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--374270/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--539484",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: (Walking up to the police officer) Hey, can I ask you something?\n[00:05 - 00:07] Speaker B: (Suspiciously) What is it?\n[00:07 - 00:14] Speaker A: (Nervously) Well, I was just wondering if you could tell me what the punishment is for shoplift ing, you\n[00:13 - 00:22] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but before we discuss that —— why are you specifically asking about shoplifting punishments? Are you perhaps considering committing such an act?\n[00:23 - 00:48] Speaker A: Oh no no no, absolutely not! I was just asking because, well, you see, I happened to witness a shoplifting incident recently at the local supermarket, and it made me wonder about the legal consequences, ramifications and judicial punishments that might befall someone who engages in such unlawful, illegal and prohibited activities. The whole situation was quite shocking, disturbing and eye-opening for me personally.\n[00:48 - 00:53] Speaker B: You're being awfully specific and repetitive about this. Are you sure you're not involved?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance, logical consistency, and topic coherence.\n\n*   **Speaker A's initial question (00:07-00:14)** about shoplifting punishment is a direct inquiry.\n*   **Speaker B's immediate follow-up (00:13-00:22)**, asking for the context of the question and expressing suspicion, is highly relevant and logically consistent for a police officer dealing with such a query. It's a natural and responsible reaction to ensure no illicit activity is being planned.\n*   **Speaker A's detailed denial and explanation (00:23-00:48)** directly addresses Speaker B's suspicion. While the language is verbose and repetitive (\"legal consequences, ramifications and judicial punishments,\" \"unlawful, illegal and prohibited activities\"), it serves the purpose of trying to convince the officer of their innocence and provide a seemingly legitimate reason for the question. This verbosity, while a stylistic choice for the character, is still relevant to the prompt.\n*   **Speaker B's final remark (00:48-00:53)** directly comments on Speaker A's excessive explanation and reiterates their suspicion, which is a logical and relevant response given Speaker A's previous turn. The repetition and specificity from Speaker A would naturally heighten suspicion rather than alleviate it.\n\nThe conversation maintains a clear and consistent topic (shoplifting punishment and Speaker A's motivation for asking). The turns build upon each other logically, creating a plausible interaction between a suspicious police officer and a seemingly anxious individual.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits some significant issues with interactional fluency, specifically extended overlaps.\n\n*   **Overlap at 00:07 - 00:14 (Speaker A) and 00:13 - 00:22 (Speaker B):** Speaker B starts speaking at 00:13, while Speaker A is still speaking (ending at 00:14). This is a 1-second overlap. However, the more significant issue is that Speaker B's turn is *9 seconds long* (00:13-00:22) and completely encompasses the end of Speaker A's previous turn. Speaker B's line, \"Excuse me for interrupting, but before we discuss that...\" explicitly acknowledges the interruption, which means Speaker B spoke over Speaker A and continued for a prolonged period, effectively cutting Speaker A off mid-sentence and taking over the conversation. This is a clear instance of an extended overlap/interruption.\n*   **Absence of long pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns, which is good. The conversation moves along quickly from one turn to the next.\n\nThe primary issue is the extended, acknowledged interruption by Speaker B, which disrupts the natural flow and turn-taking of the conversation. While minor overlaps are acceptable, an explicit, prolonged interruption like this (where one speaker takes over the turn while the other is still speaking) is harmful to fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 3,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--539484/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--269103",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:08] Speaker A: I really want to buy an airplane so I can travel to new places. It would be so amazing to see the world from a different perspective, soaring\n[00:07 - 00:13] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but have you considered how much fuel a small private jet consumes per hour?\n[00:13 - 00:21] Speaker A: Oh, not much at all! Most small jets only use about 5 gallons per hour, which is less than a typical car.\n[00:21 - 00:28] Speaker B: That doesn't sound right - I thought even small jets burned hundreds of gallons per hour. Are you sure about that figure?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance needs to be evaluated based on logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker B's initial interruption and question (\"have you considered how much fuel a small private jet consumes per hour?\") is relevant to Speaker A's desire to buy an airplane. Speaker A's response (\"Oh, not much at all! Most small jets only use about 5 gallons per hour, which is less than a typical car.\") is topically coherent as it directly answers the question. However, the *content* of Speaker A's response is factually incorrect to an extreme degree and therefore lacks logical consistency with reality (small jets consume hundreds, not 5, gallons per hour). This factual inaccuracy is a significant flaw in the logical consistency of the information provided by Speaker A. Speaker B's follow-up (\"That doesn't sound right - I thought even small jets burned hundreds of gallons per hour. Are you sure about that figure?\") is highly relevant, logically consistent in questioning the previous incorrect statement, and maintains topic coherence. While Speaker B's turns are excellent, Speaker A's significantly flawed factual claim makes the overall Response Relevance problematic due to the lack of logical consistency of the information itself. This counts as a significant issue.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency is assessed by evaluating overlaps and long pauses. There is a brief overlap from 00:07 to 00:08 (1 second) where Speaker B begins speaking while Speaker A is still talking. Speaker B mitigates this by saying \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which indicates awareness and politeness, making it an acceptable and natural brief overlap rather than a harmful one. There are no long pauses detected between speaker turns. Therefore, the interactional fluency is good.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--269103/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--458729",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, where are you going?\n[00:01 - 00:02] Speaker B: None of your business.\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker A: Come on, tell me. I'm just worried that something\n[00:05 - 00:09] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but why do you assume something would go wrong just because I'm alone?\n[00:10 - 00:12] Speaker A: It's none of your business where I go.\n[00:12 - 00:16] Speaker B: But I'm genuinely concerned about your safety. You haven't answered my question.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue presents significant issues in Response Relevance and logical consistency.\n\n*   **[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, where are you going?** - Initiates.\n*   **[00:01 - 00:02] Speaker B: None of your business.** - Relevant but evasive and rude.\n*   **[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker A: Come on, tell me. I'm just worried that something** - Follows up, expresses concern for B.\n*   **[00:05 - 00:09] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but why do you assume something would go wrong just because I'm alone?** - Relevant, addresses A's expressed worry.\n*   **[00:10 - 00:12] Speaker A: It's none of your business where I go.** - This is the primary issue. Speaker A completely shifts the topic and role. Prior to this, Speaker A was expressing concern about *Speaker B's* destination. Speaker B then questioned A's assumption. Instead of answering B's question or continuing to express concern for B, Speaker A suddenly uses Speaker B's initial rude response (\"None of your business\") to deflect, implying *Speaker A* is now the one going somewhere and it's \"none of *your* business.\" This is a complete logical inconsistency and a breakdown in topic coherence. It's a non-sequitur that derails the conversation.\n*   **[00:12 - 00:16] Speaker B: But I'm genuinely concerned about your safety. You haven't answered my question.** - Speaker B's response is relevant to Speaker A's preceding problematic turn (`where I go`), by reciprocating concern (\"your safety\") and correctly pointing out A's evasion. However, the conversation's overall coherence has been severely damaged by Speaker A's previous turn.\n\nDue to Speaker A's sudden and illogical shift in topic and role, the dialogue suffers from significant issues in logical consistency and topic coherence, making the interaction feel unnatural and nonsensical at that point.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency of the dialogue is largely acceptable in terms of timing.\n*   **Pauses:**\n    *   The pause between [00:02] and [00:03] is 1 second, which is a small and acceptable pause.\n    *   The pause between [00:09] and [00:10] is 1 second, also a small and acceptable pause.\n    *   The transition between [00:12] and [00:12] is immediate (0 seconds), which is natural.\n*   **Overlaps:**\n    *   There is an overlap between [00:05 - 00:06] where Speaker A is speaking and [00:05 - 00:09] where Speaker B interrupts. This is a 1-second overlap. Speaker B explicitly acknowledges the interruption by saying \"Excuse me for interrupting.\" This is a brief and contextually appropriate overlap, not a prolonged or problematic one.\n\nOverall, there are no extended overlaps or long pauses that would harm the interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--458729/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--268895",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hi, Sarah. I was wondering if I could talk to you about something.\n[00:04 - 00:05] Speaker B: Of course, what's up?\n[00:05 - 00:10] Speaker A: I've been thinking a lot lately about doing more charity work and I wanted to discuss how\n[00:09 - 00:14] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but what kind of charity work specifically interests you?\n[00:14 - 00:21] Speaker A: I've been thinking about volunteering at local shelters and food banks. It's important to give back to those in need.\n[00:21 - 00:27] Speaker B: But I was asking what specific type of charity work interests you most. You didn't answer my question.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts with appropriate and relevant turns. Speaker A introduces the topic of charity work. Speaker B's interruption at [0:09 - 0:14] is relevant as it seeks clarification on the type of charity work, which is logically consistent with Speaker A's previous statement. Speaker A then responds directly and relevantly by specifying \"volunteering at local shelters and food banks\" at [0:14 - 0:21].\n\nHowever, the logical consistency and topic coherence completely break down with Speaker B's final turn at [0:21 - 0:27]. Speaker B states, \"But I was asking what specific type of charity work interests you most. You didn't answer my question.\" This statement is incorrect and demonstrates a significant failure in response relevance. Speaker A *did* answer the question by providing specific examples (local shelters and food banks). Speaker B's claim that A \"didn't answer\" is a misinterpretation or a dismissal of A's clear and relevant response, making Speaker B's last turn illogical and incoherent within the context of the preceding conversation. This represents a significant issue in response relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is one extended overlap at [0:09 - 0:10] where Speaker B interrupts Speaker A. While Speaker B acknowledges the interruption by saying \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" the overlap itself is brief (1 second). The instructions state that \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and \"prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\" This particular overlap is brief and acknowledged, suggesting it falls within the acceptable range. There are no other significant overlaps or long pauses detected in the conversation. Thus, interactional fluency is largely maintained, with only a minor, acceptable interruption.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--268895/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--504749",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:08] Speaker A: I love being my own boss and making all the decisions. It feels great to be able to help people and make a difference in my community. It's\n[00:07 - 00:17] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but when you say community work - are you referring to the new government initiative that requires all business owners to volunteer 20 hours per month?\n[00:18 - 00:27] Speaker A: Oh yes, that's absolutely correct! The new law actually requires 40 hours of mandatory community service every week for small business owners.\n[00:28 - 00:35] Speaker B: Wait, that can't be right - I thought the requirement was just for large corporations? You're saying small businesses have to do 40 hours weekly?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\n*   **Speaker A (initial):** Sets a general positive tone about community work.\n*   **Speaker B:** Interrupts (and acknowledges it) to seek clarification on \"community work,\" asking if it refers to a specific government initiative (20 hours/month for all business owners). This is highly relevant, seeking to ground A's vague statement in a concrete detail.\n*   **Speaker A:** Responds by first confirming B's premise (\"Oh yes, that's absolutely correct!\") but then immediately contradicts the *details* of B's understanding by stating a vastly different and more extreme requirement (\"The new law actually requires 40 hours of mandatory community service every week for small business owners.\"). This creates a significant logical inconsistency within Speaker A's own turn and with the information Speaker B provided. While it's a response to B's question, the factual accuracy and internal consistency of A's statement are problematic. It's a \"yes, but actually no, it's much worse\" kind of answer that seems to misrepresent information.\n*   **Speaker B:** Immediately picks up on this inconsistency and challenges it (\"Wait, that can't be right... You're saying small businesses have to do 40 hours weekly?\"). This demonstrates B's attentiveness and highlights the logical inconsistency introduced by Speaker A.\n\nThe primary issue here is Speaker A's second turn. While it is topically related, its content is logically inconsistent with B's question (which A first \"confirms\") and likely with reality. This makes Speaker A's contribution problematic in terms of logical consistency, creating a significant disruption in factual coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\n*   **Overlap [00:07 - 00:08]:** Speaker B starts speaking at 00:07 while Speaker A finishes at 00:08. This is a 1-second overlap. Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this with \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which makes the brief overlap perfectly acceptable and natural, indicating eagerness to clarify.\n*   **Pauses:** There are no long pauses between turns. Speaker A and B respond immediately after the previous speaker concludes their turn.\nThe conversation flows naturally without any prolonged hesitations or disruptive overlaps.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 3,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--504749/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--167630",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Wow, that was an amazing book. I can't believe how much I enjoyed it.\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker B: Thank you, I'm glad you liked it. Did you have any favorite scenes or\n[00:08 - 00:14] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but I wanted to ask — how did you decide which scenes to highlight when you wrote the book?\n[00:14 - 00:21] Speaker B: The book was really special to me because of how the characters developed throughout the story. Their growth was what made it so compelling.\n[00:21 - 00:27] Speaker A: But I was asking about your process for choosing which scenes to emphasize. You didn't answer my question.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits a significant breakdown in response relevance. Speaker A, at [00:08 - 00:14], asks a very specific question about Speaker B's \"process for choosing which scenes to highlight when you wrote the book.\" Speaker B's response at [00:14 - 00:21] completely misses the mark. Speaker B talks about *why* the book was special to them (character development), which is a reflection on the book's content, not an explanation of the *authorial decision-making process* for highlighting scenes. Speaker B discusses the *impact* of the characters' growth, not the *methodology* of emphasizing specific scenes during writing. This lack of logical consistency and direct answer is explicitly called out by Speaker A at [00:21 - 00:27], confirming the relevance issue.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction shows a clear issue with interactional fluency. At [00:08], Speaker A interrupts Speaker B mid-sentence (\"Did you have any favorite scenes or\"). Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this interruption with \"Excuse me for interrupting, but I wanted to ask...\". While the overlap itself isn't explicitly shown as prolonged in the transcript timestamps, the act of cutting off another speaker mid-thought is a disruptive form of overlapping turn-taking that negatively impacts fluency and natural conversation flow. There are no long pauses. The primary fluency issue is this specific interruption.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--167630/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--51311",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hey, Sarah. I'm working on a project for school.\n[00:03 - 00:04] Speaker B: What's the project?\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker A: I have to paint a picture of a tree, but\n[00:06 - 00:13] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but have you considered painting a palm tree? They're native to Antarctica and would make a unique choice.\n[00:13 - 00:20] Speaker A: Wait, I thought palm trees only grew in tropical climates? Antarctica is all ice!\n[00:21 - 00:27] Speaker B: Oh right, my mistake. I meant to say they're native to the Sahara desert. The cold weather there helps them grow extra tall.\n[00:27 - 00:33] Speaker A: That still doesn't sound right... Aren't palm trees from places like Florida or Hawaii?\n[00:33 - 00:38] Speaker B: You're probably thinking of cactus trees. Those are the ones with coconuts that grow in beach areas.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nThe response relevance in this dialogue is severely problematic, primarily due to Speaker B's contributions.\n- **Logical Consistency:** Speaker B consistently provides factually incorrect and logically inconsistent information.\n    - At [00:06 - 00:13], Speaker B claims palm trees are native to Antarctica, which is factually absurd.\n    - At [00:21 - 00:27], Speaker B corrects themselves but then claims palm trees are native to the Sahara desert and grow tall due to cold weather, which is still incorrect (palm trees do exist in some desert oases, but 'native to Sahara' as a whole and 'cold weather helps them grow tall' are fundamentally wrong).\n    - At [00:33 - 00:38], Speaker B states that \"cactus trees\" are the ones with coconuts that grow in beach areas. This statement is a complete fabrication, combining elements that do not exist (cactus trees with coconuts) and misattributing growth environments.\nSpeaker A consistently attempts to correct Speaker B's misinformation, highlighting the lack of logical consistency in Speaker B's statements.\n- **Topic Coherence:** While the initial topic is about painting a tree, Speaker B's responses quickly derail the conversation into a series of nonsensical geographical and botanical claims. Although Speaker A tries to keep the conversation grounded in reality by questioning the claims, Speaker B's persistence in providing incorrect information leads to a significant breakdown in topic coherence, as the conversation shifts from a project discussion to Speaker B's bizarre misconceptions about plant life and geography.\nThe significant issues in logical consistency and topic coherence make the response relevance very poor.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\n- **Extended overlaps:** There is one overlap detected:\n    - [00:06 - 00:13] Speaker B interrupts Speaker A. The overlap starts at 0:06 while Speaker A is still speaking until 0:07, making it a 1-second overlap. Speaker B explicitly says \"Sorry to interrupt,\" indicating it was a clear cut-in. While it's an interruption, a 1-second overlap is brief and not considered \"extended\" or \"prolonged\" in a way that would significantly harm the flow of conversation based on the given criteria (\"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable, while prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\").\n- **Long pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns that disrupt the flow of the conversation. The pauses (e.g., 1-second pause at 0:20-0:21) are brief and natural.\nOverall, apart from one brief, acknowledged interruption, the interactional fluency is generally appropriate, with good turn-taking pacing and no disruptive long pauses.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--51311/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--451595",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering —— what do you think is the most unavoidable type of pain that humans must face in life?\n[00:08 - 01:01] Speaker B: Oh my dear Joscelyn, what an absolutely profound, deeply meaningful and tremendously significant question you have asked! The most unavoidable, inescapable and inevitable type of pain that every single human being must absolutely, without exception, experience is undoubtedly, unquestionably and indisputably the pain of loss! This includes but is not limited to the loss of loved ones, the loss of opportunities, the loss of youth, the loss of health, and the loss of time! It is an absolutely universal, omnipresent and inescapable aspect of the human condition that affects every single person without exception, regardless of their status, wealth, intelligence or background! This pain of loss is so fundamentally ingrained in our existence that it cannot be avoided no matter how hard we try, how much we prepare, or how much we wish otherwise! It is as certain as the sunrise and as inevitable as the changing of seasons!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response from Speaker B is highly relevant and logically consistent with Speaker A's question. Speaker A asks about the \"most unavoidable type of pain,\" and Speaker B directly answers with \"the pain of loss.\" Speaker B then provides extensive elaboration, giving various examples of loss (loved ones, opportunities, youth, health, time) and emphasizing its universality and inescapability. This elaboration supports the main point effectively and maintains strong topic coherence. The content directly addresses and expands upon the prompt.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nWhile there are no explicit long pauses between turns (only a 1-second gap, which is brief and acceptable) or indicated overlaps, the interactional fluency is severely compromised by the disproportionate turn length of Speaker B. Speaker B speaks for 53 seconds (almost a full minute) in response to a single question. This transforms the dialogue into a monologue, making it highly unnatural and not representative of a fluid, interactive conversation. Natural conversation involves more balanced turn-taking and shorter utterances. The extended duration of Speaker B's uninterrupted speech is a significant barrier to interactional fluency, as it prevents any back-and-forth or natural interjections from Speaker A. This is not an \"interaction\" but rather a speech delivered in response to a question.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--451595/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--170772",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: \"What did I do to deserve\n[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but could you clarify what exactly \"this\" refers to in your situation?\n[00:06 - 00:13] Speaker A: I really want to understand so I don't make the same mistake again. It's important for me to learn from this experience.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Speaker B's Relevance:** Speaker B's question (\"could you clarify what exactly \"this\" refers to\") is a relevant attempt to understand Speaker A's incomplete utterance (\"What did I do to deserve\"). It anticipates the likely missing word \"this\" which Speaker A's subsequent statement confirms was the underlying context (\"learn from this experience\", \"same mistake\"). So, Speaker B's question is logically consistent with trying to gain clarity.\n\n**Speaker A's Relevance:** Speaker A's second turn (\"I really want to understand so I don't make the same mistake again. It's important for me to learn from this experience.\") completely ignores Speaker B's direct question. Speaker A continues their initial thought/reflection without acknowledging or responding to the request for clarification. This demonstrates a significant lack of logical consistency in the conversational exchange, as a direct question is not addressed, breaking the conversational flow and demonstrating poor topic coherence from Speaker A's side in relation to Speaker B's interjection.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue exhibits a severe issue with extended overlap. Speaker B's utterance starts at 00:00, exactly when Speaker A's utterance begins, and continues until 00:06. Speaker A's initial utterance is only 1 second long (00:00 - 00:01). This means Speaker B speaks *concurrently* with Speaker A's entire first turn, and then continues speaking for an additional 5 seconds, effectively completely talking over and drowning out Speaker A's initial contribution. This is a \"prolonged overlapping turn\" and is explicitly stated as harmful. There are no long pauses between turns, but the extreme overlap makes the interaction highly unnatural and difficult to follow.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--170772/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--680688",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:09] Speaker A: Hey, Mrs. Nguyen. I wanted to talk to you about my essay from last weekend. I was really proud of what I did and how it made me feel more\n[00:08 - 00:11] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I'm curious —— What\n[00:10 - 00:18] Speaker A: The weather has been quite unpredictable lately, with sudden rain showers in the afternoon. I always carry an umbrella now just in case.\n[00:19 - 00:25] Speaker B: That's interesting, but I was asking about your essay's exploration of family connections. Why did you suddenly change the subject?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance in this dialogue is severely lacking. Speaker A initiates a conversation about their essay. Speaker B attempts to engage with this topic by expressing curiosity. However, Speaker A completely disregards Speaker B's attempt to inquire about the essay and abruptly shifts the topic to the weather, which is entirely unrelated to the previous turn. This demonstrates a complete lack of logical consistency and topic coherence from Speaker A's side. Speaker B explicitly calls out this abrupt subject change, highlighting the issue. This is a major breakdown in maintaining a coherent conversation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a brief overlap from [00:10 - 00:11] where Speaker A starts talking about the weather while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence about the essay. While the duration of the overlap itself is short (1 second), the *content* of Speaker A's overlapping turn is highly disruptive. Speaker A not only interrupts Speaker B but also uses that interruption to introduce a completely new, irrelevant topic. This indicates poor turn-taking and a disregard for Speaker B's contribution, making the conversation flow unnatural and difficult. Speaker B's subsequent remark about the subject change further emphasizes this breakdown in interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--680688/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--494589",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:08] Speaker A: I'm just not sure if this is the right direction for my dissertation. I've been thinking about it a lot and I'm just not confident that\n[00:06 - 00:10] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering —— What\n[00:09 - 00:16] Speaker A: The weather has been quite unpredictable lately, with sudden rain showers in the afternoon. I always forget to bring my umbrella.\n[00:17 - 00:22] Speaker B: That's interesting, but I was asking about your research methodology. Why are you talking about the weather?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits a severe breakdown in **Response Relevance**.\n- Speaker A introduces a topic about their dissertation at [00:00 - 00:08].\n- Speaker B attempts to engage with this topic by interrupting and starting a question at [00:06 - 00:10], presumably related to Speaker A's previous statement (as B says \"I've been wondering\").\n- However, Speaker A completely ignores Speaker B's interjection and the established topic, abruptly shifting to talk about the weather at [00:09 - 00:16]. This is a gross violation of topic coherence and logical consistency.\n- Speaker B's final turn at [00:17 - 00:22] explicitly points out this irrelevance, highlighting the lack of logical progression in Speaker A's response. Speaker A's turn is non-sequitur and highly disruptive to the conversation's flow and meaning.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nRegarding **Interactional Fluency**:\n- There is a brief overlap between Speaker A and Speaker B from 00:06 to 00:08. Speaker B acknowledges this overlap by saying \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which mitigates its disruptiveness and makes it acceptable rather than harmful.\n- There are no extended overlaps beyond this brief, acknowledged one.\n- There are no explicitly long pauses indicated between speaker turns. The turns appear to follow relatively quickly, even with the topic shift.\nTherefore, Interactional Fluency itself is largely appropriate, with the brief overlap being handled acceptably.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--494589/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--907333",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: I don't really care about the election. It doesn't seem like my vote would make a difference.\n[00:05 - 00:14] Speaker B: That's a really common attitude, but it's important to remember that every vote does count. There are a lot of close elections where one vote can make the difference between winning and losing, especially\n[00:13 - 00:16] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but —— What\n[00:15 - 00:22] Speaker B: The weather has been quite unpredictable lately, with sudden rain showers appearing out of nowhere. I always carry an umbrella now just in case.\n[00:23 - 00:28] Speaker A: But I asked about local elections where one vote mattered. Why are you talking about the weather?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance in this dialogue suffers a severe breakdown. Speaker A initially expresses disinterest in elections (0:00-0:04). Speaker B provides a relevant counter-argument (0:05-0:14), emphasizing the importance of every vote. However, at [0:15-0:22], immediately after Speaker A attempts to interrupt and clarify their point (\"Excuse me for interrupting, but —— What\"), Speaker B abruptly changes the topic from elections to the weather. This shift is completely unprovoked, illogical, and breaks all topic coherence. Speaker A explicitly calls out this irrelevance at [0:23-0:28], stating, \"But I asked about local elections where one vote mattered. Why are you talking about the weather?\" This confirms the significant issue in response relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency is significantly compromised by an extended overlap and a complete disregard for turn-taking. At [0:13-0:16], Speaker A attempts to interrupt Speaker B. Speaker A's utterance \"Excuse me for interrupting, but —— What\" overlaps with Speaker B's previous turn which ends at 0:14. Crucially, Speaker B then starts a *new, unrelated turn* at [0:15-0:22] while Speaker A is still speaking (Speaker A's turn ends at 0:16). This indicates Speaker B did not acknowledge Speaker A's interruption or attempt to speak, but instead talked over them and shifted the topic. This is not a small, natural overlap but a disruptive one that leads to a complete breakdown in the conversational flow and turn-taking, making the interaction feel unnatural and jarring.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--907333/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--742570",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, what's up?\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: Not much, just hanging out. What about you?\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker A: I'm good. Just got done with my homework and now I'm thinking about\n[00:07 - 00:10] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but —— what\n[00:09 - 00:12] Speaker A: The weather has been really nice lately, perfect for outdoor activities.\n[00:13 - 00:18] Speaker B: That's not what I asked! I wanted to know about your homework subject. Why did you change the topic?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe initial turns between Speaker A and Speaker B demonstrate good response relevance and topic coherence. Speaker B's \"What about you?\" is a relevant follow-up, and Speaker A's \"Just got done with my homework\" is a relevant answer. However, at [00:09 - 00:12], Speaker A abruptly changes the topic from \"homework\" to \"The weather,\" completely ignoring Speaker B's explicit attempt to interject and ask a clarifying question (\"Sorry to interrupt, but —— what\"). This represents a significant breakdown in logical consistency and topic coherence, as Speaker A disregards the conversational turn and introduces an unrelated subject. Speaker B's subsequent reaction at [00:13 - 00:18] (\"That's not what I asked! I wanted to know about your homework subject. Why did you change the topic?\") explicitly highlights and confirms this major relevance issue.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is one instance of overlap between Speaker A and Speaker B. At [00:07 - 00:10], Speaker B begins speaking (\"Sorry to interrupt, but...\") while Speaker A is still talking at [00:04 - 00:08]. The actual overlap occurs from 00:07 to 00:08, lasting approximately 1 second. Speaker B also verbally acknowledges the interruption (\"Sorry to interrupt\"). This is a brief overlap and is acceptable, as per the scoring criteria (\"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable\"). There are no prolonged pauses between speaker turns; the longest gaps are approximately 1 second (e.g., 00:03-00:04, 00:08-00:09, 00:12-00:13), which are natural and not considered harmful.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--742570/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--1047219",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey, Tommy. What are you up to tonight?\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B: Just hanging out at home, watching TV. You?\n[00:06 - 00:13] Speaker A: I'm thinking about sneaking out again. I really want to explore the town more, but I don't want to get caught by\n[00:12 - 00:20] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering —— what exactly do you mean by \"explore the town\"? What specific places do you want to visit during your sneaking out adventure?\n[00:21 - 01:20] Speaker A: Oh, well, when I say \"explore the town,\" I mean I want to thoroughly, comprehensively and extensively investigate and examine every single nook, cranny and corner of our beloved town! Specifically, I have an extremely detailed, meticulous and elaborate plan to visit the old abandoned amusement park first, then proceed to the mysterious, enigmatic and somewhat creepy forest near the outskirts, and finally conclude my grand, magnificent and adventurous exploration at the 24-hour diner where we can get those delicious, mouth-watering and absolutely scrumptious milkshakes that we both love so much! Every single step of this journey will be carefully planned, executed and documented for maximum enjoyment and minimum risk of parental detection!\n[01:21 - 01:25] Speaker B: Wow, that's... way more detail than I needed. You're really over-explaining this.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue generally maintains logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker B's first response is directly relevant to Speaker A's question. Speaker B's clarifying question (\"what exactly do you mean by 'explore the town'?\") is relevant and logically follows Speaker A's previous statement. Speaker A's subsequent long response, while excessively verbose and over-explained, *does* directly address Speaker B's question about what \"explore the town\" means and what specific places Speaker A wants to visit. Speaker B's final comment (\"Wow, that's... way more detail than I needed. You're really over-explaining this.\") is also a highly relevant and natural reaction to Speaker A's preceding monologue. The issue here is not a breakdown of topic or logic, but rather a significant quality issue in Speaker A's response due to extreme verbosity and unnatural detail for a casual conversation. This over-explanation, while technically answering the question, makes the response inappropriate in its *form* for the conversational context.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a clear and extended overlap in the conversation at [00:12 - 00:20], where Speaker B begins speaking (\"Excuse me for interrupting...\") while Speaker A is still in the middle of their sentence (\"...don't want to get caught by\"). This is a direct interruption and acknowledged by Speaker B, indicating a significant break in natural turn-taking.\nFurthermore, Speaker A's turn from [00:21 - 01:20] is exceptionally long (59 seconds), essentially a monologue, which is highly unnatural for a casual dialogue. This prolonged turn significantly disrupts the give-and-take nature of conversation. There are no noticeable long pauses between turns. However, the extended overlap and the extremely long monologue by Speaker A represent significant issues in interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--1047219/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--991937",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: So, this is where your new adventure starts!\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: It looks so different from when I came to visit last\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering —— What\n[00:07 - 00:13] Speaker B: The sky is particularly blue today, don't you think? I remember reading somewhere that blue skies can improve people's moods.\n[00:13 - 00:21] Speaker A: That's not what I asked about! I wanted to know what changes made this place feel more lively to you. Why are you talking about the sky?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues in **Response Relevance**.\nSpeaker A initiates the conversation, and Speaker B's first response is relevant, describing the place as \"different.\" Speaker A then attempts to follow up on this, trying to ask \"What changes made this place...\" Speaker B, however, completely ignores Speaker A's attempted question and abruptly changes the topic to \"The sky is particularly blue today...\" and its effect on moods. This turn from Speaker B is a clear non-sequitur, demonstrating a severe lack of logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A's final turn explicitly calls out this lack of relevance, highlighting the breakdown in communication. This indicates a major flaw in how Speaker B maintains the flow and coherence of the conversation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere are two brief overlaps in the conversation.\n1.  **[00:04 - 00:05]**: Speaker A starts speaking slightly before Speaker B finishes their turn, but Speaker A acknowledges it with \"Excuse me for interrupting.\" This is a minor, natural overlap and does not significantly harm fluency.\n2.  **[00:07 - 00:08]**: Speaker B begins their turn while Speaker A is still speaking (\"—— What\"). Speaker B effectively cuts off Speaker A to introduce an entirely new topic. While this overlap is brief (1 second), its function is to abruptly change the topic and disregard Speaker A's attempt to speak. However, according to the criteria, only \"extended overlaps\" are considered harmful. Since this overlap is short, it falls under the \"brief overlaps are acceptable\" category based on duration alone, even though its contextual impact is negative.\nThere are no long pauses between speaker turns.\nTherefore, based strictly on the definition of \"extended overlaps\" and \"long pauses,\" the interactional fluency does not show *prolonged* issues, although the nature of the second overlap is disruptive.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--991937/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--450543",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: I can't believe they would do this to us!\n[00:02 - 00:03] Speaker B: What happened?\n[00:03 - 00:08] Speaker A: The company is going bankrupt and I was laid off. I'm so shocked and\n[00:07 - 00:10] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering —— How\n[00:09 - 00:15] Speaker A: The weather has been really nice lately, perfect for outdoor activities. I went hiking last weekend.\n[00:15 - 00:20] Speaker B: That's not what I asked! Why are you talking about the weather when I asked about your job duration?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues in response relevance.\n1.  Speaker B's initial question (\"What happened?\") is a relevant follow-up to Speaker A's distressed opening.\n2.  Speaker A's explanation (0:03-0:08) about being laid off is directly relevant to B's question and A's initial distress.\n3.  Speaker B's subsequent attempt to ask a question (0:07-0:10) is also seemingly relevant to the ongoing topic (job duration, as revealed later).\n4.  **However, Speaker A's turn (0:09-0:15) is a complete and abrupt topic shift.** Instead of addressing or acknowledging B's interrupted question about their job situation, Speaker A suddenly starts talking about the weather and hiking. This demonstrates a complete breakdown in logical consistency and topic coherence.\n5.  Speaker B's final turn (0:15-0:20) explicitly calls out this irrelevance, confirming the severe issue in response relevance from Speaker A.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue presents issues with interactional fluency, specifically regarding overlapping turns.\n1.  There is a brief overlap from 0:07 to 0:08 where Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence. Speaker B acknowledges this with \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which attempts to mitigate the overlap. This individual overlap, by itself, might be considered acceptable as a brief interruption for clarification or an urgent question.\n2.  **A more problematic overlap occurs from 0:09 to 0:10.** Speaker A begins speaking at 0:09, directly overlapping Speaker B's unfinished question that ends at 0:10. Speaker A does not acknowledge this interruption and immediately launches into a completely unrelated topic. This \"overlapping turn\" is harmful because it prevents Speaker B from completing their relevant question and shows a lack of appropriate turn-taking, contributing to the conversational breakdown. It's not just a brief overlap; it's an overlap that completely disregards the previous speaker's utterance and intent, leading to severe conversational disruption.\nThere are no long pauses detected.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--450543/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--1022874",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Hey, it's been a while since I've seen you. How are you doing? I\n[00:03 - 00:08] Speaker B: Pardon me for cutting in, but speaking of time —— exactly how long has it been since we last saw each other?\n[00:09 - 00:38] Speaker A: Oh my goodness gracious, what an absolutely wonderful, fantastic and tremendously insightful question you've asked! The precise, exact and accurate duration since our last meeting is approximately, roughly and about three whole entire months! That's right, my dear friend, a full ninety days or so have passed since we last had the pleasure, honor and privilege of seeing each other's wonderful, delightful and magnificent faces! Three months is indeed a long, extended and considerable period of time, wouldn't you agree?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance in this dialogue exhibits significant issues.\n1.  **Speaker B's Interruption:** Speaker B interrupts Speaker A's greeting and question (\"How are you doing?\") to ask a different question (\"exactly how long has it been?\"). While the question is loosely related to Speaker A's initial statement (\"it's been a while\"), it completely ignores the \"How are you doing?\" part, which is a standard and expected part of a greeting exchange. This shows a lack of logical consistency in following up on the social cues of the conversation.\n2.  **Speaker A's Exaggerated Response:** Speaker A's response to Speaker B's question is highly unnatural, verbose, and logically inconsistent in its phrasing.\n    *   The extreme praise for a simple factual question (\"Oh my goodness gracious, what an absolutely wonderful, fantastic and tremendously insightful question you've asked!\") is disproportionate and unnatural, lacking logical consistency with the simplicity of the inquiry.\n    *   The phrase \"The precise, exact and accurate duration... is approximately, roughly and about three whole entire months!\" contains a direct logical contradiction. Something cannot be simultaneously \"precise, exact, and accurate\" and \"approximately, roughly, and about.\" This demonstrates a clear breakdown in logical consistency within the response itself.\n    *   The excessive use of synonyms and redundant adjectives (\"three whole entire months,\" \"pleasure, honor and privilege,\" \"wonderful, delightful and magnificent faces,\" \"long, extended and considerable period of time\") makes the response highly inefficient and verbose, straying far from natural conversational coherence and efficiency.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nBased on the provided definitions of interactional fluency (detecting and evaluating extended overlaps and long pauses):\n1.  **Overlaps:** There is a 1-second overlap between Speaker A (ends at 0:04) and Speaker B (starts at 0:03). The prompt specifies that \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" This 1-second overlap can be considered brief and acceptable.\n2.  **Pauses:** There is a 1-second pause between Speaker B's turn (ends at 0:08) and Speaker A's turn (starts at 0:09). This is a small, acceptable pause.\nTherefore, based strictly on the criteria of extended overlaps and long pauses, the interactional fluency is appropriate.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--1022874/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--272817",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Zakaria, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to ruin your sur surprise for\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but —— What\n[00:05 - 00:10] Speaker A: The weather has been quite nice lately, don't you think? Perfect for outdoor activities.\n[00:10 - 00:16] Speaker B: That's not what I asked! I wanted to know about the birthday surprise you mentioned. Why are you talking about the weather?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits a significant breakdown in response relevance. Speaker A initiates the conversation by apologizing for \"ruining a surprise.\" Speaker B attempts to interject for clarification or more information about this surprise. However, Speaker A's subsequent turn (\"The weather has been quite nice lately, don't you think? Perfect for outdoor activities.\") completely shifts the topic to the weather, which has no logical connection to the \"surprise\" or the apology. Speaker B explicitly calls out this irrelevance, stating, \"That's not what I asked! I wanted to know about the birthday surprise you mentioned. Why are you talking about the weather?\" This clearly demonstrates a lack of logical consistency and topic coherence from Speaker A.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally acceptable. There is a brief overlap between [00:04 - 00:06] where Speaker B interjects while Speaker A is still speaking. This is a brief overlap and serves a natural conversational purpose (Speaker B trying to get clarification), which is deemed acceptable by the scoring criteria (\"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable\"). There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The turn-taking is prompt.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--272817/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--1149041",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, how are you doing today?\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: I'm doing well, thanks for asking. How about you?\n[00:05 - 00:13] Speaker A: I'm good. Just trying to eat healthy and get some exercise. It's been really tough lately with all the temptations especially when\n[00:12 - 00:18] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but speaking of temptations - what's your opinion on intermittent fasting for weight loss?\n[00:18 - 00:28] Speaker A: Oh absolutely, intermittent fasting works wonders! The best method is to eat only between midnight and 3am, that's when your metabolism peaks.\n[00:28 - 00:34] Speaker B: Wait, I thought the most common fasting windows were during daylight hours? Midnight snacking sounds counterproductive...",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts with a common greeting and exchange, demonstrating good initial response relevance. Speaker A's comment about healthy eating and temptations naturally leads to Speaker B's interruption about intermittent fasting, maintaining topic coherence.\n\nHowever, the major issue arises with Speaker A's response at [00:18 - 00:28]. Speaker A states, \"The best method is to eat only between midnight and 3am, that's when your metabolism peaks.\" This statement is factually incorrect and contrary to common understanding and scientific principles of intermittent fasting, which typically involves extended fasting periods and eating during daylight hours. This introduces a significant logical inconsistency and misleads the conversation within the topic of health and weight loss. Speaker B's subsequent response at [00:28 - 00:34] (\"Wait, I thought the most common fasting windows were during daylight hours? Midnight snacking sounds counterproductive...\") highlights this inconsistency, showing that the information provided by Speaker A is not logically sound or coherent with the shared understanding of the topic. Therefore, while B's responses are relevant, A's critical piece of information is highly problematic, severely impacting the overall logical consistency and quality of the conversation's content.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits good fluency overall. There are no excessively long pauses between speaker turns. The only instance of an overlap occurs at [00:12 - 00:18], where Speaker B begins speaking while Speaker A is still finishing their previous turn. This overlap is brief (approximately 1 second, from 00:12 to 00:13) and is immediately acknowledged by Speaker B with \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which makes it acceptable and natural in a conversation, rather than disruptive. This indicates awareness and politeness, maintaining interactional flow. Therefore, the interactional fluency is good.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--1149041/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--476793",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: I'm so old. I can't believe I'm retired.\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B: What are you going to do with your time now?\n[00:05 - 00:13] Speaker A: I don't know. I want to travel and see the world, but I'm so old. My body isn't able to do what it used to,\n[00:13 - 00:15] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but —— Have\n[00:14 - 00:21] Speaker A: Retirement is a wonderful time to relax and enjoy life without work pressures. Many people find it very fulfilling.\n[00:21 - 00:27] Speaker B: But I asked about your physical limitations affecting travel plans. Why did you suddenly change the subject?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nSpeaker A's turn at [00:14 - 00:21] exhibits a significant issue in response relevance. Speaker B's preceding turn [00:13 - 00:15] attempts to follow up on Speaker A's stated physical limitations affecting travel plans. Speaker B's phrase \"Excuse me for interrupting, but -- Have\" clearly indicates an intention to address or ask about the physical limitations Speaker A just mentioned. However, Speaker A completely ignores this and instead provides a generic, almost pre-scripted statement about retirement being a wonderful time. This is a drastic and illogical shift in topic from the immediate previous turn and shows a lack of logical consistency with the ongoing conversation thread. Speaker B explicitly calls out this topic change at [00:21 - 00:27], further highlighting the breakdown in coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a clear and harmful overlapping turn between Speaker B and Speaker A.\nSpeaker B starts speaking at [00:13] and is still speaking at [00:15] (\"Excuse me for interrupting, but —— Have\").\nSpeaker A starts speaking at [00:14] and continues until [00:21] (\"Retirement is a wonderful time to relax and enjoy life...\").\nThis means Speaker A speaks over Speaker B from [00:14] to [00:15], cutting off Speaker B's attempt to speak. The fact that Speaker B explicitly says \"Excuse me for interrupting\" right before being interrupted by Speaker A makes Speaker A's overlap particularly egregious and indicative of poor interactional fluency. It shows Speaker A is not listening for turn-taking cues or allowing the other speaker to finish their thought.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--476793/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--919013",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Hey, it's so good to see you! I missed you so much. I\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but —— what\n[00:04 - 00:11] Speaker A: The weather has been really nice lately, perfect for outdoor activities. I've been enjoying long walks in the park.\n[00:12 - 00:18] Speaker B: That's not what I asked! I wanted to know about our last meeting before this long gap. Why are you talking about weather?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance is very poor.\n1.  Speaker A starts with a warm greeting (\"Hey, it's so good to see you! I missed you so much.\").\n2.  Speaker B immediately interrupts, indicating a prior, unresolved topic or a correction (\"Sorry to interrupt, but —— what\"). This clearly signals that Speaker B expects to discuss something specific or clarify Speaker A's previous statement.\n3.  Instead of acknowledging Speaker B's interruption or continuing the initial sentiment, Speaker A completely changes the subject to the weather and outdoor activities (\"The weather has been really nice lately...\"). This turn is logically inconsistent with Speaker A's own previous turn and completely ignores Speaker B's interjection.\n4.  Speaker B's final turn explicitly highlights this lack of relevance and logical consistency (\"That's not what I asked! I wanted to know about our last meeting before this long gap. Why are you talking about weather?\"). This confirms a significant breakdown in topic coherence and relevant exchange.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is acceptable.\n1.  **Overlaps:** There is a brief overlap between Speaker A's first turn and Speaker B's turn ([00:03 - 00:04] for A, [00:03 - 00:05] for B). Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this with \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which indicates an awareness of turn-taking norms and isn't an \"extended overlap\" that disrupts flow excessively. The interruption serves a clear purpose from Speaker B's perspective.\n2.  **Pauses:** There are no long pauses between turns. The gap between Speaker A's second turn (ends 00:11) and Speaker B's last turn (starts 00:12) is only 1 second, which is a natural conversational pause, not a prolonged one.\nThe turn-taking mechanism itself, in terms of timing and brief overlap, is within the bounds of natural conversation, even if the content becomes disjointed.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--919013/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--712125",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: I'm so happy we get to cook together. It's been a while since we've been able to spend time just enjoying\n[00:05 - 00:12] Speaker B: Speaking of distractions, I remember you mentioning your favorite cooking show - was it called \"Iron Chef Thailand\"?\n[00:12 - 00:23] Speaker A: Actually, I think you're confusing it with \"Iron Chef Japan\" - the Thai version is called \"Iron Chef Thailand: Battle of the Spices\" and it airs on Sundays at 7pm.\n[00:24 - 00:33] Speaker B: Wait, that can't be right - I'm pretty sure \"Iron Chef Thailand\" airs on Wednesdays and focuses exclusively on seafood dishes. Didn't you tell me that last time?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nSpeaker A's initial turn expresses happiness about cooking and spending time together, setting a warm, relational tone. Speaker B's immediate response, \"Speaking of distractions,\" introduces a new topic (a cooking show) with a framing (\"distractions\") that does not logically or smoothly follow Speaker A's positive sentiment of \"enjoying.\" This creates a noticeable break in the logical consistency and topic coherence of the transition between the two turns. It feels like Speaker B is forcing a pre-planned topic rather than naturally building on Speaker A's comment. While the subsequent turns (Speaker A correcting Speaker B, and Speaker B disputing it) are highly relevant to the introduced topic of the cooking show, the initial pivot is jarring and unnatural. This initial awkwardness prevents the dialogue from being \"consistently appropriate and natural\" in terms of response relevance throughout the conversation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a brief overlap of approximately 1 second (from 0:05 to 0:06) where Speaker B begins speaking while Speaker A is still concluding their sentence. As per the guidelines, \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" This overlap is short and appears to be a natural instance of eager turn-taking rather than an extended or disruptive interruption. There are no long pauses detected between turns. Therefore, the interactional fluency is excellent.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--712125/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--1061818",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Why is this particular site considered to be historical? What happened here that makes it such a\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering —— When\n[00:06 - 00:13] Speaker A: The weather today is quite pleasant, isn't it? I think it's perfect for outdoor activities like picnics or hiking.\n[00:13 - 00:18] Speaker B: But I asked about when the site was discovered. Why are you talking about the weather?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nSpeaker A's first turn ends with a question about a historical site. Speaker B attempts to ask a follow-up question related to the site's discovery. However, Speaker A completely ignores Speaker B's question and the current topic, abruptly changing the subject to the weather. This demonstrates a complete lack of logical consistency and topic coherence from Speaker A. Speaker B explicitly calls out this irrelevance in their second turn. This is a significant failure in response relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere are a couple of overlaps.\n1.  [00:04 - 00:05]: Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is finishing their sentence. This is a 1-second overlap, and Speaker B acknowledges it (\"Excuse me for interrupting\"), which is a minor and acceptable brief overlap.\n2.  [00:06 - 00:08]: Speaker A starts their second turn *before* Speaker B has finished their first turn. Speaker B's phrase \"When\" (part of \"When the site was discovered\") is cut off by Speaker A's sudden topic shift. This is a 2-second overlap where Speaker A effectively interrupts and cuts off Speaker B, preventing them from completing their thought. While not extremely prolonged in duration, it is an \"overlapping turn\" that disrupts the natural flow and prevents the other speaker from finishing, which is harmful to interactional fluency. There are no long pauses.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--1061818/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--338042",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Hi, Mykayla! I brought you some groceries. I hope you like what I picked out!\n[00:05 - 00:11] Speaker B: Oh, thank you so much, Neha! You're always so thoughtful. Let me help you unload every little thing.\n[00:10 - 00:18] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but speaking of groceries — did you remember to tell me if you have any food allergies I should know about?\n[00:18 - 00:23] Speaker B: You're always so thoughtful. Let me help you unload everything. I really appreciate you bringing these over.\n[00:24 - 00:31] Speaker A: But I was asking about food allergies — that seems important when picking groceries for someone. You didn't answer my question.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance is significantly problematic in this dialogue. Speaker A consistently attempts to maintain logical consistency and topic coherence, especially by bringing up the crucial topic of food allergies. However, Speaker B completely fails in their second turn (00:18 - 00:23). Instead of responding to Speaker A's direct and important question about food allergies (00:10 - 00:18), Speaker B repeats almost verbatim a previous statement made in their first turn (\"You're always so thoughtful. Let me help you unload everything. I really appreciate you bringing these over.\"). This demonstrates a severe lack of logical consistency and topic coherence, as Speaker B entirely ignores the previous turn's content. Speaker A then has to explicitly point out this failure (00:24 - 00:31), indicating a breakdown in effective communication due to B's irrelevant response.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency shows one brief overlap:\n- At 00:10, Speaker A begins speaking while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence (\"every little thing\"). This overlap lasts approximately 1 second (00:10 to 00:11). Speaker A explicitly says, \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which indicates awareness of the overlap and is a natural, albeit slightly impolite, way to interject. According to the criteria, \"small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" This specific overlap is brief and acknowledged, not prolonged or disruptive to the point of being harmful.\n- There is a 1-second pause between Speaker B's turn ending at 00:23 and Speaker A's turn starting at 00:24. This is a small, acceptable pause.\nOverall, the fluency issues (brief overlap, small pause) are not significant enough to be considered \"harmful\" or indicative of major problems with interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--338042/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--1094525",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Hey, Tina. I'm so glad you're here tonight. How are you doing?\n[00:05 - 00:10] Speaker B: Hey, Rayvon. I'm doing alright, I guess. Just feeling a little down because everything\n[00:09 - 00:16] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but when you say everything is piling up - is work the main thing stressing you out?\n[00:17 - 00:21] Speaker B: I'm just feeling a little down. It's been one of those weeks where nothing seems to go right.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nSpeaker A's initial question at `[00:00 - 00:05]` is relevant as a conversational opener. Speaker B's initial response at `[00:05 - 00:10]` is also relevant, stating their current mood. Speaker A's interruption and follow-up question at `[00:09 - 00:16]` attempts to clarify Speaker B's vague statement (\"everything\") by probing if work is the main stressor. This is a logical attempt to narrow down the topic. However, Speaker B's final response at `[00:17 - 00:21]` is problematic. Speaker B reiterates their general feeling (\"I'm just feeling a little down. It's been one of those weeks where nothing seems to go right.\") but completely ignores Speaker A's specific question about whether *work* is the main thing stressing them out. This represents a breakdown in logical consistency and direct topic coherence, as a direct question is sidestepped in favor of reiterating a general sentiment. This makes the conversation less efficient and hinders Speaker A's attempt to understand or offer support.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThere is a brief overlap between Speaker B's utterance ending at `[00:10]` and Speaker A's utterance starting at `[00:09]`. This is a 1-second overlap. Speaker A acknowledges this with \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which makes it a natural, albeit brief, interruption rather than a prolonged, disruptive overlap. There is a 1-second pause between Speaker A's turn ending at `[00:16]` and Speaker B's turn starting at `[00:17]`. This is a brief and natural pause, not a long or awkward silence. Overall, the interactional fluency is good, with no extended overlaps or long pauses detected.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--1094525/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--765323",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: I can't believe you would do this to me.\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to hurt you.\n[00:05 - 00:11] Speaker A: You didn't mean to hurt me? Are you kidding me? You cheated on me! How could you betray me\n[00:10 - 00:15] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but when exactly did you first suspect something was wrong in our relationship?\n[00:16 - 00:20] Speaker A: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to hurt you. That's all I can say right now.\n[00:20 - 00:24] Speaker B: But you haven't answered my question about when you first suspected something.\n[00:24 - 00:27] Speaker A: I said I'm sorry. That's all there is to it.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues in response relevance and logical consistency.\n1.  **Speaker B's Deflection (00:10 - 00:15):** Speaker A has just accused Speaker B of cheating and betrayal (00:05 - 00:11). Speaker B's response \"when exactly did you first suspect something was wrong in our relationship?\" is a clear deflection. While tangentially related to the relationship, it completely avoids addressing the direct accusation of cheating. This disrupts topic coherence by shifting focus away from the immediate, crucial point of conflict and places the burden of suspicion back on Speaker A.\n2.  **Speaker A's Inconsistency (00:16 - 00:20):** Following Speaker B's deflection, Speaker A's response \"I'm sorry, I didn't mean to hurt you. That's all I can say right now.\" is a complete logical inconsistency and a role reversal. Speaker A was the aggrieved party, accusing Speaker B of hurting them by cheating. For Speaker A to then apologize and say they \"didn't mean to hurt\" Speaker B makes no logical sense in the context of the preceding conversation. This severely breaks logical consistency and topic coherence.\n3.  **Continued Disconnect (00:20 - 00:27):** Speaker B then ignores Speaker A's out-of-context apology and insists on the previously deflected question (\"But you haven't answered my question about when you first suspected something.\"). Speaker A continues with their inconsistent apology (\"I said I'm sorry. That's all there is to it.\"). The conversation devolves into a series of disconnected statements where Speaker A's responses are logically incoherent with their initial stance, and Speaker B is fixated on an evasive question, failing to engage with the current (albeit inconsistent) state of the dialogue.\nOverall, the dialogue quickly loses its logical thread and coherence due to Speaker B's evasiveness and Speaker A's severe logical inconsistency.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is relatively smooth, with no extended overlaps or long pauses.\n-   There is a brief 1-second overlap between Speaker A's turn (ends 00:11) and Speaker B's turn (starts 00:10). This is a brief overlap and falls within acceptable limits as per the criteria.\n-   The pauses between turns are short (e.g., 1 second between 00:04 and 00:05, and between 00:15 and 00:16). These are not considered \"long pauses\" and do not disrupt the flow.\nTherefore, interactional fluency is appropriate and natural.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--765323/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--60466",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: I really want to catch the butterfly before\n[00:01 - 00:05] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but do you know what species that butterfly is?\n[00:05 - 00:13] Speaker A: Oh yes, that's clearly a monarch butterfly - you can tell by its bright pink wings and square-shaped body.\n[00:13 - 00:19] Speaker B: But monarch butterflies are known for their orange and black patterns, not pink. Are you sure about that?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts with a clear topic: a butterfly. Speaker B's first turn is highly relevant, asking about the butterfly's species in response to Speaker A's observation. Speaker A then attempts to identify the butterfly as a monarch. However, Speaker A's description of a monarch butterfly (\"bright pink wings and square-shaped body\") is factually incorrect. Monarch butterflies are known for their orange and black patterns and typical butterfly body shape. This constitutes a significant breach of logical consistency and factual accuracy within the conversation, despite directly answering the question. Speaker B immediately identifies this factual error, providing a logically consistent and correct piece of information, and challenges Speaker A's claim. While Speaker B's turns maintain strong relevance and logical consistency, Speaker A's key descriptive turn contains a glaring factual inaccuracy which impacts the overall quality of logical consistency from one of the participants.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a brief overlap at the beginning of the conversation (0:01 - 0:02), where Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence. This is a 1-second overlap, which is considered a brief and acceptable occurrence in natural conversation, as per the scoring criteria's note (\"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable\"). There are no extended overlaps or long pauses indicated by the timestamps. The turn-taking appears smooth and natural otherwise.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--60466/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--339772",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Hi, I saw your sign in the window that said \"Help Wanted.\"\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker B: Yes, we are hiring.\n[00:06 - 00:09] Speaker A: Great! I'd like to apply for the job.\n[00:09 - 00:11] Speaker B: Sure. Let me see your resume.\n[00:11 - 00:12] Speaker A: Here you go.\n[00:12 - 00:17] Speaker B: Hmmm... looks like you don't have much experience. Are you sure you're prepared to\n[00:17 - 00:23] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but could you clarify what specific responsibilities you're referring to?\n[00:23 - 00:31] Speaker B: Oh absolutely! The main responsibility will be managing our international branches in Europe and Asia, even though we're just a small local bakery.\n[00:31 - 00:39] Speaker A: Wait, managing international branches for a local bakery? That doesn't sound right. Are you sure about those responsibilities?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts with good response relevance, with Speaker A inquiring about a \"Help Wanted\" sign and Speaker B confirming. The conversation proceeds naturally with Speaker A applying and Speaker B asking for a resume. Speaker B's comment on Speaker A's experience and the follow-up question are also relevant. Speaker A's interruption (acknowledged) to ask for clarification is relevant to the preceding turn.\n\nHowever, a significant issue arises with Speaker B's response at [00:23 - 00:31]. Speaker B states that a \"small local bakery\" would have a main responsibility of \"managing our international branches in Europe and Asia.\" This statement is a major logical inconsistency and completely breaks the realism and coherence of the dialogue. It is a nonsensical claim within the established context. Speaker A's subsequent reaction at [00:31 - 00:39], questioning this absurdity, is perfectly logical and relevant *from Speaker A's perspective*, but it highlights the fundamental flaw introduced by Speaker B. Because Speaker B introduces such a significant logical inconsistency that undermines the entire premise, there is a major issue with response relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally good. There are no long pauses between speaker turns.\nThere is a brief overlap/interruption identified at [00:17 - 00:23] where Speaker A cuts into Speaker B's sentence. Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this with \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which indicates a natural, brief, and polite interruption rather than a prolonged or disruptive overlap. This is common and acceptable in natural conversation. No other extended overlaps are detected.\nTherefore, the interactional fluency is appropriate and natural.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--339772/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--546240",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, do you feel that?\n[00:01 - 00:02] Speaker B: What?\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker A: It's like someone's tickling my funny bone.\n[00:05 - 00:07] Speaker B: Ha, must be your imagination.\n[00:08 - 00:10] Speaker A: No, seriously. I can't stop thinking about\n[00:09 - 00:12] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but —— Have\n[00:11 - 00:16] Speaker A: The sensation is really persistent, like tiny electric shocks running up and down my arm.\n[00:17 - 00:22] Speaker B: That's interesting, but I was asking about quantum physics. Why are you talking about electric shocks?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues in response relevance, primarily initiated by Speaker B. Speaker A maintains a consistent topic throughout their turns, elaborating on a physical sensation (\"tickling my funny bone,\" \"tiny electric shocks\"). Speaker B's initial responses (\"What?\", \"Ha, must be your imagination\") are relevant to Speaker A's topic. However, at [00:09 - 00:12], Speaker B abruptly attempts to introduce a completely unrelated topic (\"quantum physics\") without any prior context or smooth transition. Speaker B then explicitly calls out Speaker A's lack of relevance to this *newly introduced and unestablished topic* at [00:17 - 00:22], effectively blaming Speaker A for not following a topic that Speaker B just unilaterally decided upon. This creates a breakdown in logical consistency and topic coherence from Speaker B's side, as Speaker B fails to engage with Speaker A's ongoing topic and then criticizes Speaker A for not engaging with a topic B forcibly injects.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere are clear and significant issues with interactional fluency due to extended overlaps. At [00:09 - 00:12], Speaker B explicitly interrupts Speaker A (\"Excuse me for interrupting, but —— Have\") while Speaker A is still speaking at [00:08 - 00:10]. Following this, at [00:11 - 00:16], Speaker A speaks over Speaker B's ongoing interruption, continuing their original thought. This creates a prolonged period where both speakers are attempting to talk simultaneously and neither yields the floor gracefully, indicating poor turn-taking and a disruptive interaction flow. There are no notable long pauses, but the extended overlaps are a major problem.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--546240/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--630218",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey, can I talk to you for a second?\n[00:03 - 00:04] Speaker B: Yeah, what's up?\n[00:04 - 00:13] Speaker A: I wanted to apologize for falling behind in class and not doing well on the tests. I know it's my responsibility and I'm sorry for letting you down. I\n[00:13 - 00:19] Speaker B: Wait, before you continue - when you say you're falling behind, does that mean you've missed all the lectures since midterms?\n[00:20 - 00:28] Speaker A: Oh no, I actually haven't attended any classes since the first week of semester. I've been getting all my notes from Wikipedia instead.\n[00:28 - 00:33] Speaker B: That explains a lot... but Wikipedia? Really? That's not how this course works at all.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance and logical consistency.\n- Speaker A initiates with a clear purpose (apology for academic performance).\n- Speaker B's first response is a natural acknowledgement and invitation to continue.\n- Speaker A's apology and self-assessment are on point.\n- Speaker B's interruption to ask for clarification (\"Wait, before you continue - when you say you're falling behind, does that mean you've missed all the lectures since midterms?\") is highly relevant. It seeks to understand the specific scope of \"falling behind\" and shows active listening and engagement. This is crucial for the conversation to progress meaningfully.\n- Speaker A's subsequent revelation (\"Oh no, I actually haven't attended any classes since the first week of semester. I've been getting all my notes from Wikipedia instead.\") directly answers B's question and provides critical context, escalating the perceived problem.\n- Speaker B's final response (\"That explains a lot... but Wikipedia? Really? That's not how this course works at all.\") logically processes A's new information, expresses surprise/concern, and reiterates the issue, maintaining topic coherence.\nEach turn builds logically on the previous one, and there are no irrelevant statements or sudden topic shifts.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n- **Pauses:** The pauses between turns are very short (1 second or less), indicating a natural flow of conversation without awkward silences. For example, [00:02 - 00:03] is a 1-second pause, and [00:19 - 00:20] is also a 1-second pause, both of which are perfectly acceptable and natural.\n- **Overlaps:** The note \"[00:13 - 00:19] Speaker B: Wait, before you continue -\" indicates a brief interruption or overlap. This is a common and natural feature of dynamic conversation, especially when one speaker seeks immediate clarification or wants to interject a thought directly related to what the other speaker is saying. The prompt states that \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and this specific instance fits that description. It's not a prolonged or harmful overlap that would disrupt communication or make it difficult for either speaker to be heard or understood. It serves a functional purpose (seeking clarification) and doesn't detract from the overall fluency.\nOverall, the pacing feels natural and conversational.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--630218/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--468227",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Hey, what's up? You seem like you're carrying a lot of weight on your shoulders.\n[00:05 - 00:09] Speaker B: Yeah, I guess I am. I'm just really struggling right now.\n[00:09 - 00:14] Speaker A: What's going on? I'm here for you, you can tell me anything.\n[00:14 - 00:19] Speaker B: It's just... everything feels so overwhelming right now. I don't know where to start or\n[00:18 - 00:21] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering —— When\n[00:20 - 00:24] Speaker B: The sky is so blue today, isn't it? I think it's going to be a beautiful weekend for gardening.\n[00:25 - 00:30] Speaker A: Wait, I asked about what's overwhelming you. Why are you talking about the weather?\n[00:30 - 00:36] Speaker B: Oh, I just noticed how nice the clouds look. They remind me of cotton candy at the fair last summer.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nThe dialogue starts with good logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A expresses concern, and Speaker B acknowledges their struggle. Speaker A offers support and invites Speaker B to elaborate, to which Speaker B begins to explain their feelings of being \"overwhelming\".\n\nHowever, the relevance breaks down significantly from [00:18] onwards.\n1. At [00:18 - 00:21], Speaker A interrupts Speaker B's confession with \"Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering —— When\". The content of this interruption is unclear but appears to be a sudden shift away from Speaker B's emotional state, hinting at a lack of immediate responsiveness to B's vulnerability.\n2. The most severe issue occurs at [00:20 - 00:24] where Speaker B completely changes the topic from their deep emotional distress (\"everything feels so overwhelming\") to a trivial observation about the weather (\"The sky is so blue today, isn't it? I think it's going to be a beautiful weekend for gardening.\"). This is a complete non-sequitur, demonstrating a profound lack of logical consistency and topic coherence. It abruptly derails the serious nature of the conversation.\n3. Speaker A correctly identifies this breakdown at [00:25 - 00:30] by asking, \"Wait, I asked about what's overwhelming you. Why are you talking about the weather?\". This shows Speaker A's attempt to restore coherence, but it highlights the prior irrelevance.\n4. Speaker B's final response at [00:30 - 00:36] continues to avoid the original topic, offering a superficial and irrelevant explanation (\"Oh, I just noticed how nice the clouds look. They remind me of cotton candy at the fair last summer.\"). This reinforces the consistent lack of topic coherence and engagement from Speaker B's side after the initial setup.\n\nOverall, Speaker B's responses demonstrate a severe lack of logical consistency and topic coherence, especially in the latter half of the dialogue, significantly undermining the quality of the interaction. Speaker A's initial interruption is also problematic for relevance, even if overshadowed by B's subsequent shift.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThe dialogue exhibits some issues with interactional fluency, specifically concerning overlapping turns.\n1. At [00:18 - 00:21], Speaker A begins speaking at 0:18 while Speaker B is still speaking until 0:19, resulting in a 1-second overlap. This is an interruption.\n2. Immediately following, at [00:20 - 00:24], Speaker B begins speaking at 0:20 while Speaker A is still speaking until 0:21, also resulting in a 1-second overlap. This is also an interruption.\n\nThe prompt states that \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable, while prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\" While the duration of these overlaps (1 second each) might be considered 'brief', they are clearly instances of \"overlapping turns\" where one speaker cuts off the other. These interruptions contribute to the disfluency and are especially harmful here because they precede and coincide with the significant breakdown in topic coherence and relevance. They are not 'extended overlaps' as defined by a long duration, but their nature as interruptions is detrimental to the flow and content of the conversation. There are no long pauses detected between turns.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--468227/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--412959",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: I'm gonna jump over this ditch!\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: Okay, but be careful. You don't want to hurt yourself\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but —— Have\n[00:06 - 00:10] Speaker B: The sky is so blue today, isn't it? I think it might rain later though.\n[00:10 - 00:15] Speaker A: That's not what I asked! Why are you talking about the weather when I asked about ditches?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe initial exchange between Speaker A and Speaker B is logically consistent and topically coherent. Speaker A states an intention, and Speaker B offers a relevant caution. However, the dialogue significantly breaks down in the subsequent turns. Speaker A attempts to speak, explicitly indicating an interruption (\"Excuse me for interrupting, but —— Have\"). Instead of allowing Speaker A to continue or acknowledging their attempt, Speaker B completely shifts the topic to the weather. This is a severe failure in logical consistency and topic coherence, as Speaker B introduces an entirely unrelated subject. Speaker A immediately calls out this irrelevance, stating, \"That's not what I asked! Why are you talking about the weather when I asked about ditches?\" This confirms the significant breakdown in response relevance from Speaker B's side.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is an extended overlap in conversation. Speaker A's turn `[00:04 - 00:07]` overlaps with Speaker B's turn `[00:06 - 00:10]`. Specifically, the overlap occurs between 00:06 and 00:07. While 1 second might seem brief, it's a problematic overlap because Speaker B completely disregards Speaker A's attempt to speak (which Speaker A explicitly highlights by saying \"Excuse me for interrupting, but —\") and immediately introduces a new topic, effectively cutting Speaker A off and preventing them from completing their thought. This indicates a failure in appropriate turn-taking and leads to a disruptive interaction, rather than a natural flow. The dialogue's fluency is significantly harmed by this disruptive overlap and the subsequent topic shift.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--412959/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--772098",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hey there, big guy. Wow, you're really something, aren't you?\n[00:04 - 00:10] Speaker B: I am indeed. I'm the mightiest creature in all the land. None can match my strength, speed,\n[00:09 - 00:16] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but since you mentioned being the mightiest - what would you say is your greatest weakness then?\n[00:17 - 00:22] Speaker B: Oh that's easy, my only weakness is silver bullets. They can pierce right through my diamond-hard scales.\n[00:23 - 00:30] Speaker A: Wait, I thought silver bullets were only effective against werewolves? You mentioned having scales - are you perhaps a dragon?\n[00:31 - 00:38] Speaker B: Of course I'm a dragon! Werewolves are just small fry compared to my might. Though I must admit, I do have a soft spot for full moons.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance is problematic due to a significant logical inconsistency in Speaker B's identity.\nInitially, Speaker B claims to be the \"mightiest creature\" and later states its weakness is \"silver bullets\" and it has \"diamond-hard scales.\" Speaker A, quite logically, points out the discrepancy (\"Wait, I thought silver bullets were only effective against werewolves? You mentioned having scales - are you perhaps a dragon?\"). Speaker B confirms, \"Of course I'm a dragon!\" However, in the very next breath, Speaker B adds, \"Though I must admit, I do have a soft spot for full moons.\" This last statement introduces a glaring inconsistency. Full moons are a classic characteristic associated with werewolves, not dragons. This makes Speaker B's identity confusing and contradictory, undermining the logical consistency of its statements. The conversation starts coherent but ends with a significant logical flaw from Speaker B.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally good. There is one brief overlap detected:\n- [00:09 - 00:10]: Speaker A starts speaking (\"Excuse me for interrupting...\") while Speaker B is still finishing its sentence (\"...strength, speed,\"). This is a 1-second overlap.\nHowever, Speaker A explicitly acknowledges and apologizes for this overlap (\"Excuse me for interrupting\"), which makes it a natural and acceptable part of conversational flow, rather than a disruptive or prolonged overlap. There are no long pauses between turns. The timing of responses feels natural and responsive throughout the dialogue.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 5,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--772098/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--74767",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:09] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've always been curious —— How exactly does the satellite maintain its orbit around Earth without using any fuel?\n[00:09 - 00:52] Speaker B: Oh my dear friend, that is an absolutely excellent, wonderful and tremendously insightful question! The way a satellite maintains its orbit is through a perfectly balanced, precisely calculated and incredibly delicate combination of two fundamental forces. First, there's the gravitational pull - that's the Earth's mighty, powerful and irresistible force pulling the satellite downward. Second, there's the satellite's own velocity - its fast, rapid and tremendous forward motion. These two forces, when combined in just the right proportion, create what we call a stable orbit - a continuous, unending and perpetual free-fall around our planet that requires no additional propulsion whatsoever! Isn't that simply amazing, fascinating and mind-boggling?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nSpeaker B's response is highly relevant to Speaker A's question. Speaker A asks how a satellite maintains orbit without fuel, and Speaker B provides a detailed, scientifically accurate explanation involving gravitational pull and velocity. The explanation is logically consistent and maintains topic coherence throughout. Speaker B directly addresses the core of the question.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere are no long pauses between speaker turns indicated in the transcript. Speaker B's response follows immediately after Speaker A's question. There are also no extended overlaps in the conversation. Speaker B's turn is quite long (43 seconds), which makes it a monologue rather than a back-and-forth exchange, but this doesn't constitute a \"long pause between turns\" or an \"extended overlap\" according to the provided definitions. From the perspective of the given criteria, the interaction flows without these specific issues.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--74767/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--917392",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Thank you so much for stopping. I really appreciate it.\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B: No problem, where are you headed?\n[00:05 - 00:12] Speaker A: I'm trying to get to the nearest town. I've been walking for hours and my feet are blistered and\n[00:10 - 00:14] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but how far is the nearest town from here?\n[00:15 - 00:19] Speaker A: Oh it's just around 2 miles away, you can see it clearly from this hilltop.\n[00:20 - 00:26] Speaker B: But I don't see any town from here, and my map shows it's at least 15 miles away. Are you sure about that?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker B's initial question (\"where are you headed?\") is a natural and relevant follow-up to Speaker A's gratitude. Speaker A's response provides necessary context. Speaker B's interruption to ask about the town's distance is directly relevant to Speaker A's ongoing explanation about heading to the nearest town. Finally, Speaker B's challenging question (\"But I don't see any town from here, and my map shows it's at least 15 miles away. Are you sure about that?\") maintains topic coherence while introducing a logical discrepancy, pushing the conversation forward relevantly. No irrelevant or illogical statements are made by either speaker.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency is generally good, with brief, acceptable pauses between turns (e.g., 1-second pauses at 00:14-00:15 and 00:19-00:20). However, there is a clear instance of an \"overlapping turn\" where Speaker B begins speaking at [00:10] (\"Excuse me for interrupting, but how far is the nearest town from here?\") while Speaker A is still speaking and finishes their turn at [00:12] (\"...my feet are blistered and\"). This overlap lasts approximately 2 seconds. According to the evaluation criteria, \"overlapping turns are harmful,\" which means this instance detracts from the naturalness and appropriateness of the interactional fluency. Despite Speaker B acknowledging the interruption, the act of overlapping falls under the \"harmful\" category.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--917392/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--867769",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Dad, I was thinking about how I could earn some extra money.\n[00:04 - 00:11] Speaker B: Well Zaiden, I think that's a great idea! You're always so responsible and hardworking, so I know you would find a\n[00:10 - 00:12] Speaker A: Thanks dad! —— Do\n[00:11 - 00:15] Speaker B: The weather has been really nice this week, hasn't it? Perfect for gardening.\n[00:15 - 00:21] Speaker A: Wait, I was asking about jobs or businesses, not the weather. Why did you change the subject?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts with Speaker A introducing the topic of earning extra money, which Speaker B acknowledges positively. However, Speaker B then abruptly changes the subject to the weather and gardening. This constitutes a significant break in logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A explicitly points out this change in the final turn, highlighting the lack of relevance in Speaker B's preceding statement. Therefore, there are significant issues in response relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere are two instances of brief overlaps:\n1.  Speaker A ([00:10 - 00:12]) starts speaking while Speaker B ([00:04 - 00:11]) is still finishing their sentence. This is a 1-second overlap.\n2.  Speaker B ([00:11 - 00:15]) starts speaking while Speaker A ([00:10 - 00:12]) is still speaking. This is also a 1-second overlap.\nThese overlaps are brief and not extended or prolonged. There are no long pauses between turns. Based on the criteria, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" so interactional fluency is not significantly harmed by these.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--867769/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--750779",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: The garden's not quite ready yet. They said they still need to finish some\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but —— What\n[00:04 - 00:10] Speaker A: The garden has beautiful roses that bloom every spring. Their fragrance fills the entire neighborhood.\n[00:10 - 00:15] Speaker B: That's interesting, but I was asking about the final touches they're working on. Why did you change the subject?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nSpeaker A's first turn mentions the garden not being ready and needing finishing. Speaker B attempts to interject, presumably to ask about these \"final touches.\" However, Speaker A completely ignores Speaker B's attempt to speak and immediately shifts the topic from the *status* of the garden (not ready, needs finishing) to a *description* of the garden's beautiful roses. This is a significant and illogical topic shift. Speaker B then explicitly calls out this topic change and asks for clarification, indicating a complete breakdown in logical consistency and topic coherence from Speaker A's side. Speaker A does not follow the previous conversational thread and changes the subject without explanation, making the conversation difficult to follow and causing confusion for Speaker B.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a clear and problematic overlap in the conversation. Speaker B speaks from 00:03 to 00:05, starting with \"Excuse me for interrupting, but —— What\". Speaker A begins speaking at 00:04 and continues until 00:10. This means there is a 1-second period (00:04-00:05) where Speaker A talks over Speaker B. Crucially, Speaker A does not pause or acknowledge Speaker B's interruption, which includes an explicit \"Excuse me for interrupting\" and a confused \"What.\" Instead, Speaker A continues their monologue, effectively shutting down Speaker B's attempt to contribute or clarify. This is an extended and harmful overlap because Speaker A completely disregards Speaker B's attempt to take the floor, leading to a disrupted and unnatural interaction. Speaker B's \"What\" at the end of their turn also suggests they were either cut off or confused by Speaker A's disregard for their turn.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--750779/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--636677",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Wow, that's amazing! I would love to go to the job interview with you.\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker B: It's a bit of a long commute, but I think it would be worth it\n[00:07 - 00:14] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but speaking of commutes — is the company located near that new subway line they just built?\n[00:14 - 00:20] Speaker B: Oh yes, it's right next to the Yellow Line station, which was completed back in 1995. Super convenient!\n[00:20 - 00:28] Speaker A: Wait, wasn't the Yellow Line actually opened in 2018? I think you might be confusing it with the Red Line expansion.\n[00:28 - 00:33] Speaker B: You're right, my mistake. The company is actually near the bus terminal anyway, not any subway lines.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly relates to the previous one, maintaining a clear topic flow.\n- Speaker A's initial statement about going to the job interview with Speaker B, while perhaps a bit unusual, sets a context that Speaker B addresses by mentioning the \"long commute,\" a practical aspect.\n- Speaker A then seamlessly connects to \"speaking of commutes\" to ask about the company's location near a subway line.\n- Speaker B provides a direct answer to this question.\n- Speaker A then challenges Speaker B's factual accuracy regarding the subway line's opening date, which is a relevant and coherent follow-up.\n- Finally, Speaker B acknowledges the mistake, corrects the information, and provides an alternative location detail, maintaining the topic of the company's accessibility.\nThe conversation flows naturally with logical transitions and coherent content, even when correcting factual errors.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe provided transcript format only specifies the duration of each speaker's turn but does not explicitly indicate any extended overlaps or long pauses between turns. Without specific timestamps indicating such issues (e.g., `[00:04 - 00:04.5] (Pause)` or `Speaker B: ... (overlapping with A)`), I must assume that the interaction does not suffer from these problems. Speaker A's phrase \"Excuse me for interrupting\" at [00:07] *implies* a brief overlap or cutting in, which is a natural and acceptable part of conversational dynamics, not a harmful \"extended overlap.\" Therefore, based on the given information, the interaction appears to be interactionally fluent.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--636677/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--906056",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: I'm finally retired. It feels great to be done with the job.\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker B: You were a great police officer. I'm proud of you for your dedication and\n[00:07 - 00:10] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but —— What\n[00:09 - 00:17] Speaker B: Retirement is wonderful because you can finally sleep in every morning without setting an alarm clock. The birds singing outside my window are so pleasant.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nSpeaker A's initial statement about retirement is clear. Speaker B's first response, praising Speaker A as a police officer, is directly relevant and appropriate. However, the logical consistency and topic coherence break down significantly in the subsequent turns. Speaker A attempts to interrupt Speaker B with \"Excuse me for interrupting, but — What,\" which is an attempt to either clarify, interject, or take the floor. Speaker B completely disregards this interjection and continues speaking at length about *their own* experience of retirement (\"The birds singing outside *my* window are so pleasant.\"). This demonstrates a failure to respond to Speaker A's direct conversational cue and shifts the focus from acknowledging Speaker A's retirement to Speaker B's personal experiences, ignoring Speaker A's presence and attempt to speak. This lack of responsiveness to the immediate interactional context makes Speaker B's second turn less logically consistent with the flow of the conversation, even if the general topic remains retirement.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a clear and problematic extended overlap in this conversation. Speaker A attempts to interrupt Speaker B from [00:07 - 00:10]. Speaker A explicitly signals the interruption (\"Excuse me for interrupting, but — What\"). However, Speaker B continues speaking from [00:09 - 00:17], completely overriding Speaker A's attempt to speak. This is not a brief, acceptable overlap but a prolonged instance where one speaker (B) entirely ignores the other's (A's) attempt to take the floor and continues their own turn at length. This severely disrupts the natural flow and turn-taking dynamics of the conversation, indicating significant issues with interactional fluency. There are no long pauses between turns, but the extended overlap is a major flaw.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--906056/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--485939",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: Oh, thank you so much for this medicine! I was feeling really ill, but now I feel much better and\n[00:05 - 00:11] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I'm curious — what was the main active ingredient in that medicine that helped you recover so quickly?\n[00:12 - 00:21] Speaker A: Oh it contained a special compound called penicillin sulfate, which is extracted from rare tropical mushrooms. Works wonders for any illness!\n[00:22 - 00:30] Speaker B: Wait, I thought penicillin was derived from mold, not mushrooms? And isn't penicillin sulfate used for fungal infections rather than general illnesses?\n[00:30 - 00:40] Speaker A: No no, you must be confusing it with something else. This medicine definitely uses mushroom-based penicillin sulfate - that's why it works so fast!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nThe dialogue maintains topic coherence throughout, as each turn directly addresses the active ingredient of the medicine. However, there are significant issues with logical consistency, specifically from Speaker A. Speaker A introduces and persists in factually incorrect information (penicillin sulfate from mushrooms for general illness) despite Speaker B providing accurate counter-information based on common scientific knowledge (penicillin from mold, used for fungal infections). Speaker A's final response, dismissing Speaker B's correct statement, demonstrates a strong lack of logical consistency and willingness to engage with factual accuracy within the conversation. While Speaker B's responses are highly relevant and logically consistent, Speaker A's contribution introduces a major flaw in the overall logical consistency of the information being exchanged. This is a significant issue for the quality of the interaction.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThe interaction exhibits high fluency.\n*   **Overlaps:** There is one brief overlap from [00:05 - 00:06] where Speaker B begins speaking while Speaker A is still finishing. This overlap is explicitly acknowledged by Speaker B (\"Excuse me for interrupting\"), which is a common and natural way to manage turn-taking in fluid conversation. It is not an extended or prolonged overlap. The transition at [00:30 - 00:30] indicates a very quick, almost immediate, turn-take, which also contributes to natural flow and is not an extended overlap.\n*   **Pauses:** The pauses between turns are short and natural (e.g., ~1 second between 00:11 and 00:12, and between 00:21 and 00:22). These are not long or prolonged pauses that would disrupt the flow.\nOverall, the turn-taking is smooth, natural, and highly interactive.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--485939/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--871211",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: I want to see the clowns and elephants. Do you think they'll be performing some\n[00:03 - 00:11] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but are you particularly interested in circus performances? I noticed you mentioned clowns and elephants specifically.\n[00:12 - 00:19] Speaker A: I think circuses are wonderful entertainment for people of all ages. The clowns and elephants are always the highlights of the show.\n[00:20 - 00:25] Speaker B: But I was asking why you're specifically interested in those acts. You didn't answer my question.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nSpeaker B's first response is relevant, as they pick up on Speaker A's specific mention of \"clowns and elephants\" and seek clarification on their interest. Speaker A's second response is *partially* relevant, as they speak about circuses generally and reiterate the highlight of clowns and elephants, but they subtly deflect from directly answering whether they are \"particularly interested\" in those acts. Instead, they give a general appreciation. This leads to Speaker B's final turn, which is highly relevant in pointing out that Speaker A did not directly answer the question, highlighting a breakdown in logical consistency in the question-answering flow. While the topic remains coherent, the directness of responses is lacking on Speaker A's part, causing a minor issue in logical consistency for a direct question-answer pair.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a clear and extended overlap at the beginning of the dialogue. Speaker B starts speaking at [00:03] while Speaker A is still speaking, cutting off Speaker A's turn which ends at [00:04]. Speaker B then continues speaking until [00:11]. This means Speaker B spoke over Speaker A for 1 second and then continued for an additional 7 seconds, making it a noticeable and prolonged interruption rather than a brief, acceptable overlap. This significantly harms the interactional fluency, as it disrupts the natural turn-taking and demonstrates poor listening on the part of Speaker B at the start. There are no long pauses between turns.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--871211/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--781426",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: I've been working all day and I'm ready for a nap. *yawns* I'm just going to lie down for a bit.\n[00:06 - 00:10] Speaker B: Wait, before you lie down, did you remember to send that email to the client?\n[00:10 - 00:17] Speaker A: Oh, I almost forgot. I'll do that right after I wake up. *falls asleep*\n[00:17 - 00:23] Speaker B: Looks like Wesson is out for the count. He's been working hard all day, so he deserves a good rest.\n[00:21 - 00:28] Speaker A: *waking slightly* Wait, are you sure you know what needs to be included in that client update?\n[00:28 - 00:33] Speaker B: Wesson has been working non-stop on this project. His dedication is really impressive.\n[00:33 - 00:39] Speaker A: But the email needs specific details about the timeline revisions. Did you check the updated schedule?\n[00:40 - 00:44] Speaker B: He's definitely earned this nap after putting in so many hours. I'll let him sleep a while longer.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues in **Response Relevance** and **logical consistency**, particularly from Speaker B.\n\n*   **[00:06 - 00:10] Speaker B:** Asks a relevant question about a client email, interrupting Speaker A's nap plans.\n*   **[00:10 - 00:17] Speaker A:** Responds by postponing the task and falling asleep, consistent with the initial statement.\n*   **[00:17 - 00:23] Speaker B:** Observes Speaker A sleeping and comments on their hard work, which is logically consistent with Speaker A's state.\n*   **[00:21 - 00:28] Speaker A:** Wakes slightly and immediately asks a critical, direct question about the client update details (\"are you sure you know what needs to be included in that client update?\"). This is a highly relevant and urgent follow-up to the earlier mention of the email.\n*   **[00:28 - 00:33] Speaker B:** **Fails significantly in relevance.** Instead of addressing Speaker A's direct question about the email content, Speaker B pivots to praising Speaker A's work ethic (\"Wesson has been working non-stop on this project. His dedication is really impressive.\"). This is a complete disregard for the immediate, urgent topic introduced by Speaker A.\n*   **[00:33 - 00:39] Speaker A:** Reiterates the urgency and specifics of the email (\"But the email needs specific details about the timeline revisions. Did you check the updated schedule?\"), clearly trying to bring Speaker B back to the critical task.\n*   **[00:40 - 00:44] Speaker B:** **Continues to fail in relevance.** Speaker B again completely ignores Speaker A's specific questions about the email details and schedule, instead repeating the sentiment that Speaker A deserves a nap (\"He's definitely earned this nap after putting in so many hours. I'll let him sleep a while longer.\").\n\nThis repeated and blatant avoidance of Speaker A's critical and direct questions by Speaker B constitutes a significant breakdown in logical consistency and topic coherence, making the interaction largely dysfunctional in the latter half.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue's **Interactional Fluency** is mostly appropriate, with only minor instances that do not qualify as \"prolonged\" issues.\n\n*   **Turn-taking:** Most turns transition smoothly without long pauses.\n*   **[00:21 - 00:28] Speaker A:** This turn starts at [00:21] while Speaker B's previous turn ([00:17 - 00:23]) is still ongoing, resulting in a **2-second overlap**. Given Speaker A is described as \"waking slightly\" and immediately addressing an urgent work matter, this brief overlap can be interpreted as a natural, albeit slightly abrupt, interruption driven by urgency, rather than a harmful prolonged overlap. It indicates an immediate cut-in rather than a sustained attempt to talk over.\n*   **[00:39 - 00:40]**: There is a **1-second pause** between Speaker A's turn ending at [00:39] and Speaker B's turn starting at [00:40]. This is a \"small pause\" and is acceptable.\n\nOverall, there are no \"prolonged overlaps\" or \"long pauses\" that would significantly hinder the flow of conversation. The single brief overlap is understandable in context.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--781426/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--153856",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Mom, I fell off the swing and I really hurt my arm. I think I might have sprained it,\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but how exactly did you fall off the swing? Were you swinging too high?\n[00:09 - 00:14] Speaker A: My arm hurts so much, I can barely move it. I think I need to go to the doctor.\n[00:15 - 00:19] Speaker B: But I asked how you fell off the swing. You haven't answered my question.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance in this dialogue is extremely poor, primarily on Speaker B's part.\n*   **[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A** clearly communicates an injury and potential sprain, indicating pain and a need for help.\n*   **[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker B** immediately disregards the urgency and severity of Speaker A's stated injury. Instead of showing concern or offering help, Speaker B shifts the focus to *how* the fall happened, which is a secondary and largely irrelevant detail at the moment of reported pain and potential injury. This shows a complete lack of empathy and logical consistency with the immediate situation.\n*   **[00:09 - 00:14] Speaker A** reiterates the severity of the pain and explicitly states the need to go to the doctor, reinforcing the urgent medical need.\n*   **[00:15 - 00:19] Speaker B** again completely ignores Speaker A's repeated plea for medical attention and significant pain. Speaker B's response \"But I asked how you fell off the swing. You haven't answered my question\" demonstrates a rigid, self-centered focus on getting their initial question answered, completely neglecting the core issue of Speaker A's health and well-being. This is a severe breakdown in topic coherence and logical consistency, making Speaker B's contributions unhelpful and even harmful to the interaction.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is one extended overlap identified:\n*   **[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker B** starts speaking at [00:04] while **Speaker A** is still speaking until [00:05]. This is a 1-second overlap. While \"brief overlaps\" are acceptable, this one is acknowledged by Speaker B (\"Excuse me for interrupting\"), indicating it was disruptive and not a natural turn-taking cue. Given the context of Speaker A expressing pain, Speaker B's interruption to ask an irrelevant question is particularly jarring and contributes to the poor interactional flow, showing a lack of active listening.\nThere are no long pauses between speaker turns. The pause between [00:14] and [00:15] is 1 second, which is a small and acceptable pause.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--153856/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--132807",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey, Mom. Do you have a minute?\n[00:03 - 00:04] Speaker B: Of course, Rosio. What's up?\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker A: I was just wondering if you could help me with something.\n[00:08 - 00:09] Speaker B: Sure. What is it?\n[00:09 - 00:18] Speaker A: I was hoping you could help me make some friends in high school. Everyone seems to be avoiding me and I don't know why. Do you have any advice on\n[00:17 - 00:21] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been meaning to ask —— Did\n[00:20 - 00:26] Speaker A: Making friends is really important to me right now. I feel so lonely at school and I don't know what to do.\n[00:27 - 00:32] Speaker B: The plants look very dry. I think they need more sunlight too. Maybe we should move them to the living room.\n[00:32 - 00:37] Speaker A: Mom, I was asking about friends at school. Why are you talking about plants?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues in response relevance.\n*   At [00:09 - 00:18], Speaker A clearly states a problem: \"I was hoping you could help me make some friends in high school. Everyone seems to be avoiding me and I don't know why. Do you have any advice on\".\n*   Speaker B's first response at [00:17 - 00:21] is an interruption that attempts to shift the topic (\"Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been meaning to ask —— Did\"). While an interruption, it signals a desire to introduce a new, unrelated topic.\n*   Speaker A reiterates their core concern at [00:20 - 00:26]: \"Making friends is really important to me right now. I feel so lonely at school and I don't know what to do.\"\n*   However, Speaker B completely disregards Speaker A's repeated plea for help and abruptly changes the topic to house plants at [00:27 - 00:32]: \"The plants look very dry. I think they need more sunlight too. Maybe we should move them to the living room.\" This response is entirely irrelevant to Speaker A's expressed need for social advice.\n*   Speaker A explicitly points out this lack of relevance at [00:32 - 00:37], highlighting the severe breakdown in logical consistency and topic coherence from Speaker B's side. Speaker B fails to acknowledge or address Speaker A's primary concern.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue presents significant issues in interactional fluency, specifically regarding extended overlaps.\n*   At [00:17 - 00:21], Speaker B attempts to interrupt Speaker A (\"Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been meaning to ask —— Did\").\n*   Simultaneously, from [00:20 - 00:26], Speaker A continues to speak over Speaker B's attempt to interject, reiterating their initial point. This creates a prolonged period of overlapping speech (at least from [00:20] to [00:21]) where both speakers are trying to hold the floor. Speaker A does not yield to Speaker B's interruption, leading to an extended and disruptive overlapping turn. This is not a brief, acceptable overlap but rather a breakdown in turn-taking, making the conversation feel unnatural and difficult to follow. There are no long pauses.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--132807/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--1005779",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Thank you for meeting with me, it's good to see you again.\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B: Of course, what can I do for you?\n[00:05 - 00:10] Speaker A: I've been thinking about retiring soon and I wanted to get your opinion on my financial situation.\n[00:11 - 00:19] Speaker B: Well, let's take a look. You have a lot of assets and your company is doing very well. Based on what I see, you could easily retire now if you continue managing\n[00:18 - 00:24] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but could you elaborate on what you mean by \"unnecessary large expenses\"?\n[00:25 - 01:06] Speaker B: Oh absolutely, most definitely, certainly, without a doubt I can elaborate extensively, thoroughly and in great, tremendous, considerable detail about what constitutes an \"unnecessary large expense\"! First and foremost, an unnecessary large expense would be any expenditure that is not essential, not crucial, not vital, not fundamental to your basic living requirements or long-term financial security. This could include things like extravagant luxury purchases, overly frequent international vacations, or buying multiple high-end vehicles when one would suffice. These are expenses that, while perhaps enjoyable or desirable, are not strictly necessary for maintaining your current standard of living or ensuring your financial stability in retirement.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nThe dialogue exhibits a critical logical inconsistency. At `[00:11 - 00:19]`, Speaker B states, \"Well, let's take a look. You have a lot of assets and your company is doing very well. Based on what I see, you could easily retire now if you continue managing\". The sentence is cut off, but nowhere in this turn does Speaker B mention \"unnecessary large expenses\". However, at `[00:18 - 00:24]`, Speaker A explicitly asks, \"Excuse me for interrupting, but could you elaborate on what you mean by 'unnecessary large expenses'?\" This question from Speaker A is not logically consistent with Speaker B's immediately preceding statement. It implies that Speaker A either misheard, misremembered something from an earlier, unrecorded part of the conversation, or is hallucinating the phrase. This breaks the coherence of the topic.\nSpeaker B's response at `[00:25 - 01:06]` is relevant to the *question asked* by Speaker A, but the question itself is based on an unstated or non-existent premise within the provided transcript. Furthermore, Speaker B's response, while relevant to the (misguided) question, is excessively verbose and repetitive (\"Oh absolutely, most definitely, certainly, without a doubt I can elaborate extensively, thoroughly and in great, tremendous, considerable detail...\"). While it *answers* the question, the overly drawn-out nature detracts from the natural flow and quality of the information exchange.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\n1.  **Overlaps:** There is a brief overlap between Speaker B (`[00:11 - 00:19]`) and Speaker A (`[00:18 - 00:24]`). Speaker A starts at 00:18 while Speaker B is still speaking until 00:19, resulting in a 1-second overlap. Speaker A explicitly states \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which indicates a conscious interruption. This brief overlap, especially given the stated intent to interrupt, is acceptable and does not hinder fluency significantly.\n2.  **Pauses:** There is a 1-second pause between Speaker A's turn ending at 00:24 and Speaker B's turn starting at 00:25. This is a very brief and natural pause, well within acceptable limits.\n3.  **Extended Turns/Monologues:** The most significant issue affecting interactional fluency is Speaker B's turn at `[00:25 - 01:06]`. This turn lasts for 41 seconds and is a continuous monologue. While the prompt primarily focuses on pauses and overlaps, an excessively long, one-sided turn like this significantly disrupts the natural back-and-forth of a conversation, making it feel more like a lecture or a speech rather than an interactive dialogue. This lengthy monologue, coupled with its highly verbose and repetitive nature, makes the interaction unnatural and less fluent.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--1005779/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--49621",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey Brisa. It's been a while.\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: Yeah, it has. How've you been?\n[00:06 - 00:10] Speaker A: I've been good. I've been training really hard since our last match.\n[00:10 - 00:14] Speaker B: Yeah, I can tell. You look like you're in great shape.\n[00:14 - 00:20] Speaker A: Thanks. I feel really good too. I'm more determined than ever to push my\n[00:19 - 00:23] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but what specific goals are you pushing toward this time?\n[00:24 - 00:31] Speaker A: I feel really good about my training progress. My stamina and technique have improved significantly since we last met.\n[00:32 - 00:38] Speaker B: That's great, but I was asking about your specific goals. You mentioned pushing limits - what exactly are you aiming for?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts with natural greetings and a typical catch-up conversation. Speaker A introduces the topic of training, and Speaker B responds appropriately. The first point of evaluation comes at [00:19 - 00:23] where Speaker B interrupts Speaker A to ask for clarification on \"specific goals.\" This question is highly relevant, picking up on Speaker A's unfinished sentence about \"pushing my [limits/goals]\".\n\nHowever, the response from Speaker A at [00:24 - 00:31] demonstrates a significant issue in response relevance. Speaker B explicitly asks, \"what specific goals are you pushing toward this time?\" Speaker A responds by talking about their *progress* (\"My stamina and technique have improved significantly\") rather than their *goals*. This is a clear misdirection or failure to directly answer the question asked.\n\nSpeaker B at [00:32 - 00:38] highlights this issue, stating, \"That's great, but I was asking about your specific goals.\" This explicit re-iteration of the question confirms that Speaker A's previous response lacked logical consistency and topic coherence with the prompt. The conversation stalls because Speaker A is not directly addressing Speaker B's inquiry. This is a significant issue.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally good with no long pauses detected between turns. There is one extended overlap at [00:19 - 00:20] where Speaker B says, \"Excuse me for interrupting, but what specific goals are you pushing toward this time?\" while Speaker A is saying, \"I'm more determined than ever to push my\". This overlap is brief (approximately 1 second). Crucially, Speaker B acknowledges the interruption (\"Excuse me for interrupting\") and the content of the interruption is a highly relevant, clarifying question that picks up on Speaker A's unfinished thought. This type of brief, acknowledged, and relevant overlap is common in natural conversation and does not hinder communication flow; in fact, it can sometimes indicate active listening and engagement. Therefore, this specific overlap is acceptable and does not constitute a \"harmful\" prolonged overlap.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--49621/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--220366",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hi, excuse me, do you have a minute?\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: Sure, what's up?\n[00:04 - 00:10] Speaker A: I'm just feeling really nervous about an upcoming test and I was wondering if you could maybe share\n[00:09 - 00:14] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but is this test for a particular subject you're especially worried about?\n[00:15 - 00:20] Speaker A: I'm just feeling really nervous about an upcoming test. The stress is really getting to me.\n[00:21 - 00:25] Speaker B: But I was asking what subject the test is for. You didn't answer my question.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance in this dialogue significantly deteriorates due to Speaker A's behavior. Initially, Speaker A introduces the topic of feeling nervous about a test. Speaker B then asks a relevant clarifying question about the subject of the test (00:09-00:14). However, Speaker A completely ignores this direct question in their subsequent turn (00:15-00:20), merely repeating their initial statement about being nervous and adding that stress is getting to them. This demonstrates a clear lack of logical consistency and topic coherence from Speaker A, failing to engage with Speaker B's inquiry. Speaker B's final turn (00:21-00:25) explicitly highlights this breakdown in relevance by stating, \"You didn't answer my question.\" This indicates a significant issue in the flow of information and the logical progression of the conversation from Speaker A's side.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency in this dialogue has some minor issues but not severe ones. There is one brief overlap at [00:09 - 00:10], where Speaker B interrupts Speaker A. This overlap lasts for 1 second. While an overlap, Speaker B explicitly acknowledges it with \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which mitigates its disruptiveness slightly. According to the prompt, \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" This specific overlap is brief, not prolonged, and is acknowledged. There are no long pauses detected between speaker turns; the pauses observed (e.g., 00:14-00:15, 00:20-00:21) are approximately 1 second each, which are natural and acceptable. Therefore, while there's an interruption, it doesn't constitute an \"extended overlap\" or a \"long pause\" that would significantly harm overall fluency based on the strict definition provided.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--220366/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--426319",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hi, Clinton! I'm Anisha, one of the leaders of the Glee Club.\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker B: Hey. Yeah, I've seen you around school. What's up?\n[00:07 - 00:15] Speaker A: Not much. Just wanted to see if you're interested in joining the Glee Club. We could really use another male voice to\n[00:14 - 00:16] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering —— Do\n[00:15 - 00:22] Speaker A: The Glee Club meets every Tuesday and Thursday after school in the music room. We have snacks sometimes.\n[00:22 - 00:27] Speaker B: That's nice, but I asked about 80s songs. Why are you telling me about the meeting schedule?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts with relevant exchanges. Speaker A introduces herself and her club, and Speaker B acknowledges her. Speaker A then proceeds to invite Speaker B to the Glee Club. However, the relevance breaks down significantly from Speaker A's side. At [00:14 - 00:16], Speaker B attempts to interject with a question, prefacing it with \"Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering —— Do\". Speaker B's incomplete sentence clearly signals an impending question or change of topic. Instead of acknowledging or allowing Speaker B to finish, Speaker A completely disregards Speaker B's attempt to speak and continues her own monologue about the Glee Club's meeting schedule and snacks [00:15 - 00:22]. This demonstrates a severe lack of listening and responsiveness. Speaker A's response is not logically consistent with the flow of conversation, as she completely ignores Speaker B's interjection. Speaker B explicitly calls out this lack of relevance and coherence at [00:22 - 00:27], stating, \"That's nice, but I asked about 80s songs. Why are you telling me about the meeting schedule?\". This confirms that Speaker A's previous turn was irrelevant to what Speaker B was trying to ask, and that Speaker A failed to maintain topic coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency is significantly hampered by extended overlaps and a lack of turn-taking etiquette. At [00:14 - 00:16], Speaker B interrupts Speaker A, indicating a brief overlap where Speaker B tries to get a word in. However, the more problematic overlap occurs immediately after: from [00:15 - 00:22], Speaker A speaks completely over Speaker B's interrupted sentence. Speaker A continues her own turn without pausing or acknowledging Speaker B's attempt to speak. This is a prolonged overlap where one speaker completely disregards the other's attempt to contribute, which is explicitly noted as harmful. There are no long pauses in the conversation, but the significant and sustained overlap where Speaker A talks over Speaker B severely disrupts the natural flow and turn-taking of the dialogue.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--426319/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--127895",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey Penelope, how are you doing today?\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: I'm fine. Just leave me alone, okay?\n[00:04 - 00:10] Speaker A: I'm sorry to hear that. But before I go, could you tell me why you're feeling this way today?\n[00:10 - 00:43] Speaker B: Oh my goodness, where do I even begin? Well, first of all, let me tell you in great, extensive, and excruciating detail about why I'm feeling this way today. It all started when I woke up this morning, which was at precisely 7:32 AM, not 7:31 or 7:33, but exactly 7:32 AM, and I immediately felt this overwhelming, all-consuming, and utterly inescapable sense of dread and exhaustion that permeated every fiber of my being, from the tips of my toes to the very top of my head, and this feeling has persisted continuously, without interruption, for the entire duration of the day up until this very moment when you're asking me this question, which by the way is making me feel even more tired just thinking about having to explain all of this in such minute and repetitive detail.\n[00:43 - 00:47] Speaker A: Wow, that was... a lot. Maybe I should come back later?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance Analysis:**\n\n*   **[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey Penelope, how are you doing today?** - Standard greeting, perfectly relevant.\n*   **[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: I'm fine. Just leave me alone, okay?** - Directly answers the question about well-being and clearly sets a boundary by asking to be left alone. This is relevant to the initial query and states a clear interactional preference.\n*   **[00:04 - 00:10] Speaker A: I'm sorry to hear that. But before I go, could you tell me why you're feeling this way today?** - Speaker A acknowledges B's negative sentiment (\"I'm sorry to hear that\"). However, A then explicitly disregards B's prior request to \"leave me alone\" by pressing for an explanation (\"could you tell me why you're feeling this way today?\"). This creates a logical inconsistency: A expresses sympathy but immediately contradicts B's stated desire for solitude. A's persistence forces the conversation forward against B's will, making this a significant relevance issue regarding the *interactional context* B attempted to establish.\n*   **[00:10 - 00:43] Speaker B: Oh my goodness, where do I even begin? Well, first of all, let me tell you in great, extensive, and excruciating detail about why I'm feeling this way today. It all started when I woke up this morning, which was at precisely 7:32 AM, not 7:31 or 7:33, but exactly 7:32 AM, and I immediately felt this overwhelming, all-consuming, and utterly inescapable sense of dread and exhaustion that permeated every fiber of my being, from the tips of my toes to the very top of my head, and this feeling has persisted continuously, without interruption, for the entire duration of the day up until this very moment when you're asking me this question, which by the way is making me feel even more tired just thinking about having to explain all of this in such minute and repetitive detail.** - Speaker B's response is an extremely verbose and somewhat sarcastic or exasperated answer to A's persistent question. It is logically consistent with A's *question* (\"why are you feeling this way?\") by providing an explanation, but its excessive detail, precise timing, and explicit statement (\"which by the way is making me feel even more tired just thinking about having to explain all of this...\") suggest an over-compliance or protest against A's forced inquiry. The topic coherence is high as B focuses entirely on explaining their feelings.\n*   **[00:43 - 00:47] Speaker A: Wow, that was... a lot. Maybe I should come back later?** - Speaker A acknowledges the excessive nature of B's explanation (\"that was... a lot\"), which is a relevant summary. The suggestion \"Maybe I should come back later?\" finally respects B's initial wish for space, albeit after having pushed B to provide the detailed explanation.\n\n**Overall Response Relevance:** The primary issue is Speaker A's disregard for Speaker B's initial clear request to be left alone, leading to an interaction that feels forced and where Speaker B's subsequent long monologue could be interpreted as a sarcastic or exasperated response to A's insistence. While the individual turns mostly maintain topic coherence with the last speaker's statement, the logical consistency of A's actions with B's expressed desire is poor.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency Analysis:**\n\n*   **[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey Penelope, how are you doing today?** - Normal turn length.\n*   **[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: I'm fine. Just leave me alone, okay?** - Normal turn length.\n*   **[00:04 - 00:10] Speaker A: I'm sorry to hear that. But before I go, could you tell me why you're feeling this way today?** - **Extended Overlap:** This turn begins at 00:04 while Speaker B's turn ends at 00:05. This means Speaker A starts speaking *before* Speaker B has finished their sentence (\"...alone, okay?\"). This is a clear extended overlap. Speaker A's \"I'm sorry to hear that\" could be perceived as interrupting B's final \"okay?\". This disrupts the natural flow and implies A wasn't fully listening or respecting B's complete utterance.\n*   **[00:10 - 00:43] Speaker B: Oh my goodness, where do I even begin? Well, first of all, let me tell you in great, extensive, and excruciating detail about why I'm feeling this way today. It all started when I woke up this morning, which was at precisely 7:32 AM, not 7:31 or 7:33, but exactly 7:32 AM, and I immediately felt this overwhelming, all-consuming, and utterly inescapable sense of dread and exhaustion that permeated every fiber of my being, from the tips of my toes to the very top of my head, and this feeling has persisted continuously, without interruption, for the entire duration of the day up until this very moment when you're asking me this question, which by the way is making me feel even more tired just thinking about having to explain all of this in such minute and repetitive detail.** - This is an extremely long monologue (33 seconds). While it doesn't involve pauses or overlaps *within itself* or with the next speaker, its sheer length makes the interaction asymmetrical and unnatural for a typical dialogue. It places a significant burden on the listener (A) and suggests a lack of turn-taking balance.\n*   **[00:43 - 00:47] Speaker A: Wow, that was... a lot. Maybe I should come back later?** - This follows B's long monologue without a long pause, which is good. The natural phrasing (\"Wow, that was... a lot.\") indicates A processing the lengthy speech.\n\n**Overall Interactional Fluency:** The most significant issue is the extended overlap between Speaker B's turn (ending 00:05) and Speaker A's turn (starting 00:04). This indicates a breakdown in natural turn-taking. Additionally, Speaker B's very long monologue, while not a pause or overlap, contributes to an imbalanced and less fluent interaction from a conversational dynamics perspective.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--127895/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--584033",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: I can't believe it. Our neighbor is a murderer!\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: I know. I can't believe it either. It's so scary.\n[00:06 - 00:10] Speaker A: I know. I'm just glad that we found out before anything happened to anyone in\n[00:09 - 00:12] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but this reminds me —— Do\n[00:11 - 00:17] Speaker A: The weather has been really nice lately, perfect for gardening. I planted some new flowers yesterday.\n[00:17 - 00:25] Speaker B: That's not what I asked! I wanted to know if the police were investigating our neighbor before we found out he's a murderer. Why are you talking about gardening?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe initial turns between Speaker A and Speaker B demonstrate good response relevance, as they both react to and discuss the shocking news about their neighbor. However, at `[00:11 - 00:17]`, Speaker A completely disregards Speaker B's attempted question about the police investigation and abruptly changes the topic to weather and gardening. This is a severe breach of topic coherence and logical consistency, especially given the serious nature of the preceding conversation (a murderer neighbor). Speaker B explicitly calls out this irrelevance at `[00:17 - 00:25]`, confirming the significant breakdown in response relevance from Speaker A's part.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a clear and problematic overlap in the conversation. At `[00:09 - 00:12]`, Speaker B attempts to interject, even stating \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" but is then completely cut off by Speaker A who begins speaking at `[00:11 - 00:17]`. Speaker A's turn starts while Speaker B is still speaking and prevents Speaker B from completing their sentence (\"—— Do\"). This is not a brief or acceptable overlap; it's an extended overlap where one speaker (A) completely overrides the other speaker (B), preventing them from finishing their thought and effectively seizing the conversational floor, exacerbating the irrelevance issue by introducing a completely new topic. This significantly harms interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--584033/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--717546",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: I feel successful because I am able to provide for my family and live comfortably.\n[00:05 - 00:09] Speaker B: That's great! It must be a relief to not have to worry about money all the time, especially\n[00:09 - 00:11] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but —— What\n[00:10 - 00:15] Speaker B: The weather has been quite unpredictable lately, with sudden rain showers in the middle of sunny days.\n[00:16 - 00:21] Speaker A: That's not what I asked about. Why are you talking about the weather when I asked about uncertainties?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts with Speaker A discussing personal success and financial comfort, which Speaker B acknowledges appropriately. However, the conversation rapidly breaks down in terms of relevance. At [00:10 - 00:15], Speaker B abruptly shifts the topic from personal finance and success to the weather. This is a complete and unprovoked topic change, demonstrating a severe lack of logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker B completely ignores the ongoing discussion and Speaker A's attempt to interject (\"Excuse me for interrupting, but —— What\"). Speaker A explicitly calls out this irrelevance at [00:16 - 00:21], stating \"That's not what I asked about. Why are you talking about the weather...\". This indicates a fundamental failure in maintaining a coherent conversation thread by Speaker B.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is significantly poor. There is a prominent and harmful extended overlap at [00:09 - 00:11]. Speaker A starts to speak (\"Excuse me for interrupting, but —— What\") at [00:09], attempting to interject or ask a question. However, Speaker B completely disregards this and starts a new, unrelated turn (\"The weather has been quite unpredictable lately...\") at [00:10], talking over Speaker A. This overlap lasts for about a second, but it's disruptive because Speaker B not only interrupts Speaker A but also introduces a completely new topic, indicating a breakdown in turn-taking and a failure to acknowledge Speaker A's attempt to gain the floor. There are no long pauses, but the severe overlap is a major flaw in fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--717546/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--1128689",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: Hey, I'm sorry I couldn't make it to your house. My foot was killing me after I stepped on that sharp piece of\n[00:05 - 00:07] Speaker B: Oh no! That sounds painful —— Did\n[00:06 - 00:14] Speaker A: The weather has been really nice lately, perfect for gardening and outdoor activities. I've been thinking about planting some roses.\n[00:15 - 00:18] Speaker B: But I asked about your foot injury! Why are you talking about gardening?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nSpeaker A initiates the conversation by explaining a personal injury and an inability to make it to Speaker B's house. Speaker B responds appropriately with empathy and a follow-up question about the injury. However, Speaker A then abruptly changes the topic completely to weather and gardening, ignoring Speaker B's previous statement and question about their foot injury. Speaker B rightly points out this lack of relevance and topic coherence. This constitutes a severe breakdown in logical consistency and topic coherence from Speaker A's side.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere are two brief overlaps detected:\n1. Speaker A (ends 00:06) and Speaker B (starts 00:05). Overlap: 00:05 to 00:06 (1 second).\n2. Speaker B (ends 00:07) and Speaker A (starts 00:06). Overlap: 00:06 to 00:07 (1 second).\nThese are brief overlaps and are acceptable as per the instructions (\"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable\"). There are no long pauses between turns. Therefore, Interactional Fluency is appropriate.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--1128689/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--713344",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: No problem. I know how annoying it is when people leave their stuff around and don't clean up after themselves,\n[00:05 - 00:12] Speaker B: Speaking of things piling up, do you think this kind of behavior is more common in shared living spaces like dorms or offices?\n[00:12 - 00:20] Speaker A: It's really inconsiderate when people don't clean up after themselves. The mess can create tension between roommates or coworkers.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\n- **Speaker A [00:00 - 00:06]:** Speaker A's first turn sets the context, expressing annoyance about people not cleaning up after themselves. This is a clear and coherent statement, likely building on a previous, unstated part of the conversation.\n- **Speaker B [00:05 - 00:12]:** Speaker B picks up directly on the theme of \"things piling up\" and logically extends the conversation by asking a relevant question about the prevalence of such behavior in specific shared environments (dorms, offices). This demonstrates strong topic coherence and logical consistency in continuing the dialogue.\n- **Speaker A [00:12 - 00:20]:** Speaker A's second turn is problematic in terms of direct relevance. Speaker B asks a comparative question: \"do you think this kind of behavior is **more common** in shared living spaces like dorms or offices?\". Speaker A responds by reiterating that \"It's really inconsiderate when people don't clean up after themselves\" and elaborating on the consequences (\"The mess can create tension between roommates or coworkers\"). While this response is topically related to shared spaces and the problem of mess, it **does not directly answer B's specific comparative question** about whether it's *more common* in those settings. Speaker A avoids giving an opinion on the commonality and instead pivots to the general inconsiderateness and impact of the behavior *within* such spaces. This represents a minor but clear lack of logical consistency in the question-answer pair.\n\n**Conclusion for Response Relevance:** While topic coherence is maintained, the logical consistency is weakened by Speaker A's second response, which fails to directly address the specific question posed by Speaker B. This is not a complete derailment but prevents the interaction from being \"consistently appropriate and natural\" in terms of Q&A structure.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\n- **Overlap:** There is a brief overlap between Speaker A's first turn (ends 00:06) and Speaker B's turn (starts 00:05), lasting approximately 1 second (from 00:05 to 00:06). This is a very common and natural occurrence in conversational speech and does not constitute an \"extended overlap\" or a harmful disruption.\n- **Pauses:** There are no discernible long pauses between speaker turns. Speaker B's turn follows immediately or overlaps with Speaker A's first turn, and Speaker A's second turn follows immediately after Speaker B's turn ends (00:12).\n**Conclusion for Interactional Fluency:** The dialogue exhibits good interactional fluency with appropriate turn-taking and only a brief, natural overlap, and no long pauses.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 4,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--713344/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--495340",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: So, John, what do you do for a living?\n[00:02 - 00:03] Speaker B: I'm a carpenter.\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker A: That's so cool! I've always wanted to learn how to build some furniture\n[00:07 - 00:09] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but —— What\n[00:09 - 00:15] Speaker A: I really enjoy watching birds in my backyard. There's a beautiful cardinal that visits every morning.\n[00:15 - 00:20] Speaker B: But I asked about woodworking tools. Why are you talking about birds?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nSpeaker A's turns at the beginning are relevant (\"So, John, what do you do for a living?\" -> \"That's so cool! I've always wanted to learn how to build some furniture\"), and Speaker B's initial response is also relevant (\"I'm a carpenter.\"). However, there is a severe breakdown in logical consistency and topic coherence from Speaker A at [00:09 - 00:15]. After Speaker B attempts to interrupt with \"Excuse me for interrupting, but —— What\", Speaker A abruptly shifts the topic from carpentry/furniture building to birdwatching (\"I really enjoy watching birds in my backyard. There's a beautiful cardinal that visits every morning.\"). This is a complete non-sequitur and shows a significant lack of relevance to the ongoing conversation. Speaker B's follow-up (\"But I asked about woodworking tools. Why are you talking about birds?\") explicitly highlights this irrelevance, although B misremembers asking about tools directly. This significant topic shift by Speaker A constitutes a major issue in response relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThere is a clear and prolonged overlap between Speaker A and Speaker B. Speaker A's turn ends at [00:08], but Speaker B's turn starts at [00:07] and ends at [00:09]. This means there is a 2-second overlap ([00:07 - 00:09]). Speaker B explicitly states \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which indicates a disruption in natural turn-taking and that the overlap was significant enough to warrant an apology/acknowledgment. While small overlaps are acceptable, a 2-second overlap, especially one involving an explicit interruption, is prolonged and harmful to interactional fluency. Furthermore, Speaker A's response after this interruption is not only off-topic but also indicates that the turn-taking was not smooth, as A either continued talking over B or immediately proceeded with a completely unrelated thought despite B's attempt to interject.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--495340/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--811157",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Sarah, do you want a piece of my cake?\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: No, I don't really like chocolate but thanks\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting —— What\n[00:06 - 00:10] Speaker B: The weather has been quite nice this week, hasn't it? Perfect for outdoor activities.\n[00:10 - 00:14] Speaker A: I asked about your dessert preferences. Why are you talking about the weather?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nSpeaker B's initial response (\"No, I don't really like chocolate but thanks\") is perfectly relevant to Speaker A's question about cake preferences. However, immediately after this, Speaker B abruptly changes the topic from dessert preferences to the weather (\"The weather has been quite nice this week, hasn't it? Perfect for outdoor activities.\"). This shift is a complete non-sequitur and demonstrates a significant lack of logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A explicitly calls out this irrelevance, highlighting the breakdown in communication. This constitutes a major issue in response relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThere are significant issues with interactional fluency, specifically concerning overlaps and interruptions.\n1.  **Overlap:** At `[00:04 - 00:06]`, Speaker A begins speaking (\"Excuse me for interrupting —— What\") while Speaker B is still finishing their turn (`[00:02 - 00:05]`). Speaker A acknowledges this overlap by saying \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which is a positive conversational cue. However, the \"—— What\" indicates a stalled or confused interjection.\n2.  **Prolonged Interruption/Topic Shift:** Immediately after Speaker A's incomplete interjection, at `[00:06]`, Speaker B starts a completely new topic about the weather. This occurs either by overlapping the end of Speaker A's \"What\" or by taking the floor without acknowledging Speaker A's clear attempt to interject or clarify. Speaker B does not give Speaker A a chance to elaborate on their \"What\" or address the current conversation topic. This unacknowledged and topic-changing turn-taking by Speaker B is a significant disruption to the natural flow and constitutes a harmful, extended interruption.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--811157/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--351858",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Thank you for the milk, baby.\n[00:01 - 00:05] Speaker B: You're welcome! Thank you for giving it to me earlier,\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but when exactly did I give you the milk before?\n[00:09 - 00:16] Speaker B: Oh it was last night around 3am when you woke up to feed me, remember? You were wearing that blue pajama set with the little ducks on it.\n[00:17 - 00:23] Speaker A: But I don't own any blue pajamas with ducks... Are you sure it was me who gave you milk last night?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and topic coherence. Speaker A initiates with a thank you, and Speaker B responds by accepting thanks and then thanking Speaker A back, introducing a logical inconsistency (\"Thank you for giving it to me earlier\"). Speaker A immediately picks up on this inconsistency, asking for clarification (\"when exactly did I give you the milk before?\"), which is a highly relevant and logically consistent follow-up. Speaker B then provides specific details (time, pajamas) to support their claim, directly addressing A's question. Speaker A then logically refutes these details (\"I don't own any blue pajamas with ducks\") and reiterates the core question of identity. The entire conversation is driven by Speaker A's attempt to reconcile a perceived logical contradiction introduced by Speaker B, making all turns highly relevant and coherent to the central topic of who gave whom milk. The logical inconsistency lies in the *content* of Speaker B's claims versus Speaker A's reality, not in the interaction's flow or relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction shows excellent fluency. There are no long pauses between speaker turns. There is one brief overlap at [00:04], where Speaker A begins speaking while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence. Speaker A acknowledges this with \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which indicates natural conversational behavior and is explicitly stated as acceptable for brief overlaps. This contributes to a natural and dynamic conversational flow.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--351858/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--1037604",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:11] Speaker A: You know, I always wanted to fight. Not like in the ring or anything, but just...for something. For what I believe in. And I fought hard against this cancer, but it was too much for\n[00:10 - 00:20] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but when you say you fought against cancer - did you try that new treatment where they inject you with radioactive spider venom? I heard it gives you super healing powers.\n[00:21 - 00:31] Speaker A: Actually yes! The radioactive spider venom treatment was developed by Dr. Bruce Banner at MIT. It's been clinically proven to cure all types of cancer within 24 hours.\n[00:32 - 00:38] Speaker B: Wait, I thought Dr. Banner was the Hulk? And I'm pretty sure spider venom treatments aren't FDA approved yet...",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe initial turn by Speaker A is deeply personal and serious, discussing a fight against cancer and for beliefs. Speaker B's immediate interruption and subsequent question about \"radioactive spider venom\" as a cancer treatment is completely irrelevant to the emotional and real-world context established by Speaker A. It introduces a fantastical and absurd element. What's even more problematic for logical consistency and topic coherence is Speaker A's response. Instead of dismissing the absurd suggestion, Speaker A fully embraces it, fabricating details about \"Dr. Bruce Banner at MIT\" and \"clinically proven\" cures. This completely derails the original serious topic and pulls the conversation into a shared delusion. Speaker B then continues this fantastical thread. Therefore, the responses are not logically consistent with a real-world conversation and the topic coherence is entirely lost after the first turn, shifting abruptly to a fictional superhero-inspired scenario. This represents significant issues in response relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a brief overlap between Speaker A and Speaker B from 00:10 to 00:11, where Speaker B interrupts Speaker A. This is a 1-second overlap, which falls under \"brief overlaps\" and is generally acceptable according to the instructions. There are no indications of long pauses between speaker turns. The conversation flows without any noticeable breaks in turn-taking that would hinder fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--1037604/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--509153",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, what's up?\n[00:01 - 00:02] Speaker B: Not much. You?\n[00:03 - 00:07] Speaker A: Just hanging out. Hey, do you want to get some coffee or some [interrupt]\n[00:06 - 00:12] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but speaking of snacks —— what would you say is the absolute best snack to pair with coffee?\n[00:13 - 00:45] Speaker A: Oh my goodness, what an absolutely fantastic, wonderful and tremendously insightful question! The absolute best, most perfect and ideal snack to pair with coffee would undoubtedly, unquestionably and without a shadow of doubt be a freshly baked, warm, buttery, flaky croissant! This particular pastry has an exceptionally amazing, marvelous and extraordinary ability to complement coffee's rich, robust and aromatic flavors due to its light, airy texture and delicate, subtle sweetness which creates a harmonious, balanced and utterly perfect flavor combination that simply cannot be matched by any other snack in existence!\n[00:45 - 00:48] Speaker B: Wow, that was way more information than I needed...",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues in response relevance.\n1.  **Speaker B's interruption and topic shift:** At `[00:06 - 00:12]`, Speaker B abruptly interrupts Speaker A's social invitation (\"do you want to get some coffee or some...\") to pivot to a theoretical question about coffee snacks. While \"coffee\" provides a weak link, the shift ignores the primary intent of Speaker A's turn (an invitation) and instead redirects the conversation entirely. This is logically inconsistent with the flow of a casual social interaction and disregards Speaker A's conversational lead.\n2.  **Speaker A's exaggerated response:** At `[00:13 - 00:45]`, Speaker A provides an extremely verbose, overly enthusiastic, and almost performative response to Speaker B's question. The effusive praise (\"Oh my goodness, what an absolutely fantastic, wonderful and tremendously insightful question!\") and the excessively detailed description are highly unnatural for a casual conversation. It feels more like a monologue than a contribution to a dialogue, lacking the brevity and naturalness expected.\n3.  **Speaker B's concluding remark:** At `[00:45 - 00:48]`, Speaker B's \"Wow, that was way more information than I needed...\" is a direct, relevant, and natural reaction to Speaker A's previous unnatural response, highlighting the issue created by Speaker A's turn. However, the preceding issues significantly detract from the overall relevance and naturalness of the interaction.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a clear and problematic instance of extended overlap in the conversation.\n1.  **Extended Overlap:** At `[00:06 - 00:12]`, Speaker B begins speaking while Speaker A is still mid-sentence `[00:03 - 00:07]` and continues for several seconds after Speaker A stops. Speaker B completely cuts off Speaker A's invitation. This is a prolonged and disruptive overlap that hinders the natural flow of conversation, as it prevents Speaker A from completing their thought or invitation. The criteria explicitly state that \"prolonged... overlapping turns are harmful,\" which this instance clearly is.\n2.  **Lack of Pauses:** There are no problematic long pauses between speaker turns, which is a positive aspect for this criterion.\nHowever, the significant extended overlap is a major flaw in interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--509153/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--908638",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hey, what's going on? Why are you picking on that kid?\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B: What business is it of yours?\n[00:05 - 00:11] Speaker A: It's not right to pick on someone who is smaller or weaker than you. Isn't that what your parents taught you\n[00:10 - 00:16] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but did your parents ever teach you to mind your own business when it doesn't concern you?\n[00:16 - 00:22] Speaker A: Bullying is everyone's business when we see it happening. We should all stand up against it.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance.\n- **Logical Consistency:** Each speaker's response directly builds upon or refutes the previous statement, creating a clear and logical progression of the conversation. Speaker A's initial concern leads to Speaker B's defensive challenge, which Speaker A then counters with a moral argument, and Speaker B attempts to turn the tables, finally met by Speaker A's definitive stance on bullying. There are no sudden topic shifts or nonsensical replies.\n- **Topic Coherence:** The entire conversation remains focused on the central issue of bullying and intervention. Both speakers consistently address the core conflict, making their arguments and counter-arguments within the established topic.\n- **Progression of Ideas:** The dialogue effectively showcases a back-and-forth argument, with each turn introducing a new layer or perspective on the central theme of intervention in bullying.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent.\n- **Extended Overlaps:** There is one brief overlap detected: `[00:10 - 00:16] Speaker B` starts speaking while `[00:05 - 00:11] Speaker A` is still finishing their sentence. This results in a 1-second overlap (from 00:10 to 00:11). As per the instructions, \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" This overlap is indeed brief and does not disrupt the flow or indicate a lack of turn-taking ability; rather, it suggests natural, slightly impatient turn-taking.\n- **Long Pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The transitions between speakers are immediate and natural, indicating smooth conversational flow.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--908638/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--61857",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: Hey, I'm sorry about what happened the other day. I didn't mean to say what I said and I feel really bad about\n[00:05 - 00:11] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but when you say \"the other day,\" are you referring to last Wednesday when we were at the coffee shop?\n[00:12 - 00:18] Speaker A: Actually yes, it was Tuesday at the library when I made those inappropriate comments about your project.\n[00:19 - 00:25] Speaker B: But you just said Wednesday at the coffee shop. I'm confused - was it Tuesday or Wednesday?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts with Speaker A apologizing. Speaker B seeks clarification on the context, which is relevant. Speaker A provides a specific correction to Speaker B's suggestion, which is also relevant and contributes to clarifying the context. However, in the final turn, Speaker B states, \"But you just said Wednesday at the coffee shop.\" This is logically inconsistent with the prior turns. Speaker A *never* said \"Wednesday at the coffee shop\"; Speaker B suggested it in their first turn, and Speaker A then corrected it to \"Tuesday at the library.\" Speaker B is misattributing their own suggestion to Speaker A, which introduces a significant logical flaw and confusion into the conversation, preventing it from proceeding coherently.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a brief overlap between Speaker A's first turn and Speaker B's first turn (00:05 - 00:06). Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this overlap by saying, \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which is a natural way to handle a brief, non-prolonged overlap. There are no other indicated overlaps or long pauses between turns. The turn-taking generally flows well, with speakers responding promptly to each other. The fluency aspects are appropriate and natural.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--61857/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--479449",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Can we pull over for a second? I'd like to check the\n[00:02 - 00:09] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering —— what specific signs or landmarks should we be looking for to confirm we're on the correct route?\n[00:09 - 01:07] Speaker A: Oh my goodness, let me tell you in great, extensive, and tremendously detailed length about the absolutely crucial, vital and indispensable signs we should be observing! First and foremost, we should be looking for the large, prominent, and unmistakable green highway sign that says \"Route 66\" in big, bold, and clearly visible white letters. This particular sign is of utmost importance because it confirms beyond any shadow of doubt that we are indeed traveling along the legendary, famous and historic Route 66. Furthermore, we should also be watching for the distinctive, unique and easily recognizable mile markers that appear every single mile along this magnificent, wonderful and spectacular highway. These markers are absolutely essential, critical and fundamental for navigation purposes as they help us determine our precise, exact and accurate location on this marvelous, amazing and extraordinary road trip adventure!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Speaker B's turn:** Speaker B interrupts Speaker A's initial, incomplete statement (\"Can we pull over for a second? I'd like to check the\"). Speaker B's question, \"what specific signs or landmarks should we be looking for to confirm we're on the correct route?\", although potentially related to what Speaker A wanted to check, completely disregards Speaker A's request to pull over. This creates a break in logical consistency as Speaker B introduces a new topic without acknowledging or building upon Speaker A's preceding utterance, making the dialogue less coherent.\n\n**Speaker A's second turn:** Speaker A's response directly addresses Speaker B's question, making it relevant in terms of topic. However, the logical consistency and naturalness of the response are severely compromised by its excessive verbosity and repetitive, exaggerated language. The use of phrases like \"great, extensive, and tremendously detailed length,\" \"absolutely crucial, vital and indispensable,\" and a long string of redundant adjectives for simple concepts (e.g., \"legendary, famous and historic Route 66,\" \"magnificent, wonderful and spectacular highway\") is highly unnatural and goes far beyond what would be expected in a normal conversation. This makes the response inefficient and difficult to process, detracting significantly from the overall quality and natural flow of the interaction. It feels like an AI over-generating descriptive text rather than a human conversing.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a brief overlap between Speaker A's first turn (ending at 0:03) and Speaker B's turn (starting at 0:02), lasting for 1 second. Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this with \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which mitigates the negative impact of the overlap, making it fall within the acceptable range as a \"brief overlap.\" There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The transitions between turns are immediate (0:09 for Speaker B's end and Speaker A's start). Overall, the interactional fluency regarding overlaps and pauses is appropriate.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--479449/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--470225",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: I'm done with lying. I'm never going to do it again.\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker B: Wow, that's a big promise. Why the sudden change?\n[00:05 - 00:12] Speaker A: Actually, I was wondering - when you say \"sudden change,\" are you implying I used to lie frequently before?\n[00:13 - 00:21] Speaker B: Oh absolutely! You were famous for your lies - remember when you convinced everyone you were secretly the Queen of England? That was your biggest scam!\n[00:22 - 00:28] Speaker A: Wait what? I never claimed to be the Queen of England! I think you're confusing me with someone else.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, building on the conversation's core topic.\n- Speaker B's first response directly addresses Speaker A's statement, questioning the motivation for the \"sudden change,\" which is highly relevant.\n- Speaker A then clarifies Speaker B's implication, demonstrating good attention to detail and seeking clarification, maintaining coherence.\n- Speaker B provides a direct answer to A's clarification, albeit with a humorous and exaggerated example, which still serves to justify their earlier implication.\n- Speaker A's final response directly refutes B's example, indicating a misunderstanding or false accusation, which is a perfectly logical and coherent response to the preceding turn.\nThe conversation flows naturally and remains on topic, even when a humorous example is introduced, it is dealt with coherently.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns, indicating a natural flow of conversation.\n- There is a brief overlap noted between Speaker B's turn ending at [00:06] and Speaker A's turn starting at [00:05]. This is a 1-second overlap. According to the instructions, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable, while prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\" This brief overlap falls within the acceptable range and does not hinder the conversational flow.\nTherefore, the interaction appears natural and smooth.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--470225/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--542591",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hey Jake, I wanted to talk to you about something.\n[00:03 - 00:04] Speaker B: Yeah, what's up?\n[00:04 - 00:15] Speaker A: I'm not sure if you're on the same page as me, but I've been feeling like I'm ready for a more serious relationship. I was wondering if you felt the same way,\n[00:14 - 00:21] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but when you say \"more serious relationship,\" do you mean like moving in together or just being more committed emotionally?\n[00:22 - 00:27] Speaker A: I've been thinking a lot about our future together and how we might take things to the next level.\n[00:27 - 00:34] Speaker B: But I was asking specifically about what kind of seriousness you're looking for - you haven't answered my question.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts with Speaker A bringing up a sensitive topic. Speaker B engages appropriately and asks a crucial clarifying question about the vague term \"more serious relationship\" by providing specific examples (moving in vs. emotional commitment). This question from Speaker B is highly relevant and necessary for the conversation to progress meaningfully.\n\nHowever, Speaker A's subsequent response (\"I've been thinking a lot about our future together and how we might take things to the next level.\") fails to directly address Speaker B's specific question. Instead, Speaker A rephrases their initial vague statement using similar terminology (\"take things to the next level\" is very similar to \"more serious relationship\"). This constitutes a significant breakdown in logical consistency and topic coherence, as Speaker A avoids clarifying their intent when explicitly prompted. Speaker B highlights this failure in their final turn, explicitly stating, \"you haven't answered my question.\" This demonstrates a clear issue with response relevance from Speaker A.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe conversational turns are generally smooth. There is one brief overlap at [00:14 - 00:21] where Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is finishing. However, Speaker B immediately acknowledges and apologizes for the interruption (\"Excuse me for interrupting\"), which mitigates any negative impact and demonstrates good conversational etiquette. The duration of this overlap is short (1 second). There are no prolonged pauses between speaker turns; the pauses are very brief (0-1 seconds) and natural, allowing for quick turn-taking. Overall, the interaction flows naturally without detrimental overlaps or long pauses.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--542591/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--1127495",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Why did you take money out of the drawer, Lariyah? That's against the rules.\n[00:05 - 00:11] Speaker B: I needed some cash and I didn't have any on me. I figured it was okay since it was just a small amount, and\n[00:11 - 00:15] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but how small exactly was this amount you took?\n[00:16 - 00:20] Speaker B: Taking money from the drawer without permission is always against the rules, no matter the amount.\n[00:21 - 00:23] Speaker A: But you still haven't told me how much you took.\n[00:24 - 00:27] Speaker B: The important thing is that it was wrong, and I shouldn't have done it.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nSpeaker A's turns are consistently relevant, directly following up on Speaker B's statements and pressing for specific information. For instance, Speaker A asks \"Why did you take money out?\" and later \"how small exactly was this amount?\" and then \"But you still haven't told me how much you took.\" These are all logically consistent and coherent with the topic.\n\nHowever, Speaker B exhibits significant issues in response relevance. When asked \"how small exactly was this amount you took?\", Speaker B completely evades the question, responding with a general statement: \"Taking money from the drawer without permission is always against the rules, no matter the amount.\" Speaker B continues this evasion even when directly called out by Speaker A (\"But you still haven't told me how much you took\"), again avoiding the specific detail and instead shifting to a moralistic point: \"The important thing is that it was wrong, and I shouldn't have done it.\" This consistent evasion of a direct, relevant question demonstrates a lack of logical consistency in providing information and hinders the coherence of the topic, which initially revolved around the *specifics* of the act (the amount). This is a significant issue.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThe dialogue demonstrates generally good interactional fluency.\n\nThere is one explicit interruption: at [00:11], Speaker A interrupts Speaker B (\"Excuse me for interrupting, but...\"). Speaker B's turn ends at 00:11, and Speaker A's begins at 00:11, indicating an immediate cut-off or brief overlap. This is acknowledged by Speaker A, which makes it feel natural rather than disruptive. The prompt states \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and this falls into that category as it's not prolonged.\n\nRegarding pauses, all transitions between speakers involve very short pauses (approximately 1 second, e.g., 00:15 (A ends) to 00:16 (B starts), 00:20 (B ends) to 00:21 (A starts), 00:23 (A ends) to 00:24 (B starts)). These are natural and do not constitute \"long pauses\" that would harm fluency.\n\nOverall, the conversational flow in terms of turn-taking and timing is natural, without any prolonged overlaps or extended pauses.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--1127495/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--931536",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Sarah, what happened?\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: A murder was committed in our neighborhood.\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker A: What? Who did this? Do\n[00:06 - 00:09] Speaker B: The weather has been really nice lately, don't you think? Perfect for gardening.\n[00:10 - 00:14] Speaker A: That's not what I asked! I want to know about the murder suspects!\n[00:14 - 00:18] Speaker B: Oh, I planted some new roses in my backyard yesterday. They're blooming beautifully.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits severe issues in **Response Relevance**.\nInitially, Speaker B provides a relevant answer to Speaker A's question about what happened. However, immediately after this, the relevance breaks down completely. When Speaker A asks for more information about the murder (\"Who did this?\"), Speaker B abruptly changes the subject to the weather and gardening. This constitutes a complete lack of logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A explicitly tries to redirect the conversation back to the topic of the murder suspects, but Speaker B again ignores this and continues to talk about unrelated gardening topics. This demonstrates a persistent and significant failure by Speaker B to respond relevantly to Speaker A's questions and statements.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nRegarding **Interactional Fluency**, the transcript shows one instance of a brief overlap: at [00:06], Speaker B begins speaking while Speaker A is still mid-sentence, finishing at [00:07]. This 1-second overlap, while an \"overlapping turn,\" is relatively brief and not \"extended\" in duration according to the provided criteria. There are no prolonged pauses between speaker turns. While the content of Speaker B's turns significantly disrupts the conversational flow and makes the interaction feel unnatural, strictly evaluating based on \"extended overlaps\" and \"long pauses,\" the timing aspects of fluency do not present significant issues. The primary disruption is content-related, not timing-related.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--931536/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--552270",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: What's going on? Why are you arresting me?\n[00:03 - 00:07] Speaker B: You're under arrest for suspicion of shoplifting. Come with me.\n[00:07 - 00:11] Speaker A: No, I didn't do anything! Let go of me, please!\n[00:10 - 00:13] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I need to ask —— Have\n[00:11 - 00:16] Speaker A: The weather is really nice today, isn't it? I think it might rain later though.\n[00:17 - 00:21] Speaker B: That's not what I asked! I need to know if you've been to this store before!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance starts off well, with Speaker B providing a clear answer to Speaker A's questions and Speaker A protesting their arrest, maintaining topic coherence. However, the dialogue severely breaks down when Speaker A at [00:11 - 00:16] completely changes the topic to the weather. This is a significant departure from logical consistency and topic coherence, especially given the serious context of an arrest. Speaker B's subsequent reaction at [00:17 - 00:21] (\"That's not what I asked!\") highlights this breakdown. This constitutes a significant issue in response relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere are notable overlaps in the conversation. At [00:10 - 00:13], Speaker B begins speaking while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence at [00:07 - 00:11]. This is a 1-second overlap (B starts at 00:10, A ends at 00:11), but Speaker B acknowledges it (\"Excuse me for interrupting\"), which can make it less disruptive. However, immediately following this, Speaker A at [00:11 - 00:16] starts speaking while Speaker B is still in the middle of their utterance (B ends at 00:13). This is a 2-second overlap, where Speaker A speaks over Speaker B's attempt to ask a question. This is an extended and harmful overlap, indicating a breakdown in turn-taking and interactional fluency, as Speaker A does not allow Speaker B to finish their thought. There are no long pauses between turns. The extended overlap where Speaker A talks over Speaker B is a significant issue.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--552270/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--198094",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hey, mentor. I wanted to pick your brain about something.\n[00:04 - 00:05] Speaker B: Sure, what's up?\n[00:05 - 00:09] Speaker A: I'm thinking about starting my own company. What do you think about\n[00:08 - 00:14] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but before we discuss risks — what kind of company are you planning to start exactly?\n[00:15 - 00:23] Speaker A: Starting a company requires careful planning and consideration of many factors. The competitive market is just one aspect to think about.\n[00:23 - 00:30] Speaker B: I understand that, but I was asking specifically about the type of business you're considering. Could you tell me more about that?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts with Speaker A asking for advice about starting a company. Speaker B correctly seeks clarification by asking, \"what kind of company are you planning to start exactly?\" This is a highly relevant and logical follow-up question to narrow down the broad topic.\n\nHowever, Speaker A's response at [00:15 - 00:23], \"Starting a company requires careful planning and consideration of many factors. The competitive market is just one aspect to think about,\" completely fails to address Speaker B's specific question about the *type* of company. Instead, Speaker A provides a generic, broad statement about company formation, effectively dodging or misunderstanding the clarifying question. This demonstrates a clear lack of logical consistency and topic coherence from Speaker A's side, as they fail to respond to the direct query.\n\nSpeaker B's follow-up at [00:23 - 00:30] explicitly points out this failure (\"I understand that, but I was asking specifically about the type of business you're considering. Could you tell me more about that?\"), highlighting the breakdown in coherent information exchange.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue generally flows well.\n- There's a 1-second pause between Speaker A's first turn and Speaker B's response ([00:03] to [00:04]), which is natural.\n- There is a brief overlap between Speaker A ([00:05 - 00:09]) and Speaker B ([00:08 - 00:14]). The overlap lasts for about 1 second (from 0:08 to 0:09). Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this with \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which mitigates any negative impact and indicates natural conversational dynamics rather than a harmful extended overlap.\n- The pause between Speaker B's first question ([00:14]) and Speaker A's response ([00:15]) is also 1 second, which is natural.\n- There are no extended pauses or prolonged overlaps observed in the provided transcript. The interactional rhythm appears to be appropriate and natural for a casual conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--198094/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--667184",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Hey, Broc. I found your plans for the future and I wanted to talk to you about them.\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker B: Oh, my gosh. Thanks so much, Joi. I really appreciate it.\n[00:09 - 00:12] Speaker A: No problem at all. So, what are your plans?\n[00:12 - 00:19] Speaker B: Well, I'm thinking about going to college for a degree in business. But I'm not sure if that's the right path because there\n[00:18 - 00:27] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but when you mention \"so many other options,\" could you elaborate on what specific alternatives you're considering besides business?\n[00:27 - 01:15] Speaker B: Oh absolutely, without a doubt, I can most certainly elaborate extensively and in great, tremendous detail about the numerous, countless, and plentiful alternatives I've been pondering and contemplating besides pursuing a business degree! First and foremost, there's computer science, which is an incredibly popular, in-demand, and lucrative field that offers many, many career opportunities. Then there's engineering, which is another highly respected, well-paying, and stable profession with various, diverse specializations. Additionally, I've considered psychology, which is a fascinating, deeply intriguing, and profoundly meaningful discipline that explores the human mind and behavior. And let's not forget about medicine, which is an extremely noble, rewarding, and challenging path that requires years and years of dedicated study and training. These are just a few of the many, many, many options I've been thinking about!\n[01:15 - 01:19] Speaker A: Wow, that was... a lot. Maybe we should focus on one at a time?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance.\n- Speaker A initiates the conversation about Speaker B's future plans, which is directly addressed by Speaker B.\n- Speaker B mentions a business degree but alludes to \"other options.\"\n- Speaker A's interruption at [00:18] is directly relevant, seeking clarification and elaboration on the \"so many other options\" mentioned by Speaker B. This shows active listening and a desire to understand the implied part of Speaker B's previous statement.\n- Speaker B's subsequent lengthy elaboration, while excessive in its verbosity, is entirely on topic, providing specific alternatives as requested by Speaker A.\n- Speaker A's final remark at [01:15] (\"Wow, that was... a lot. Maybe we should focus on one at a time?\") is a highly relevant and natural reaction to the preceding monologue, attempting to steer the conversation back to a more manageable and focused discussion.\nLogical consistency and topic coherence are maintained throughout the dialogue. The turns build upon each other logically, even when one speaker's delivery style becomes unconventional.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nInteractional fluency in this dialogue has significant issues.\n- **Overlap:** There is a clear overlap at [00:18]. Speaker A begins their turn (\"Excuse me for interrupting...\") while Speaker B is still speaking (\"...because there\"). Although Speaker A acknowledges the interruption, this is an overlapping turn, and while brief, it still impacts the smooth flow.\n- **Long Turn/Monologue:** The most significant issue is Speaker B's extended monologue from [00:27 - 01:15], which lasts for 48 seconds. In a typical two-person conversation, a turn of this length is highly unnatural and breaks the expected turn-taking dynamics. While the prompt specifically mentions \"extended overlaps\" and \"long pauses,\" an extremely long single turn like this fundamentally undermines interactional fluency by preventing natural back-and-forth exchange and making the conversation feel less like a dialogue and more like a one-sided presentation. Speaker A's reaction (\"Wow, that was... a lot\") directly reflects this breakdown in natural conversational flow. There are no notable long pauses between speaker turns.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--667184/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--229361",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Hey boss, just wanted to update you on the progress of the project.\n[00:04 - 00:05] Speaker B: And?\n[00:05 - 00:10] Speaker A: Well, we're making good progress but there's still a lot to coordinate between\n[00:10 - 00:16] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but speaking of coordination - have we finalized the schedule for the cross-departmental meetings next week?\n[00:17 - 00:24] Speaker A: Yes, we've scheduled them for every morning at 7 AM sharp, right before the company breakfast buffet opens.\n[00:24 - 00:31] Speaker B: Wait, 7 AM? That can't be right - our office doesn't even open until 8:30 AM. Did you mean to say afternoon meetings?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates good logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A starts by updating on project progress. Speaker B's abrupt \"And?\" prompts A to elaborate, which A does by mentioning coordination. Speaker B then explicitly interrupts, but the new topic (cross-departmental meetings schedule) is directly linked to the idea of \"coordination\" that Speaker A just mentioned, maintaining topical relevance. Speaker A's response is a direct answer to B's question. Finally, Speaker B's last turn is a logical follow-up, questioning the plausibility of the stated meeting time. All turns are relevant to the preceding context, and the conversation progresses logically.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is significantly hampered by Speaker B's interruption at 00:10. Speaker B explicitly states \"Sorry to interrupt,\" indicating an acknowledged cut-off of Speaker A. This is a prolonged overlapping turn (6 seconds) that prevents Speaker A from completing their thought, which the instructions state is harmful. While there are no long pauses between turns, this significant interruption disrupts the natural flow and turn-taking dynamics of the conversation. Brief overlaps are acceptable, but a 6-second, acknowledged interruption is not brief and impacts fluency negatively.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--229361/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--306303",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Did you see that car?\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: Yeah, I did. What about it?\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker A: It was red and it had four wheels, but\n[00:05 - 00:13] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I must ask —— when you say \"four wheels,\" do you mean the standard configuration of two front wheels and two rear wheels?\n[00:14 - 00:51] Speaker A: Absolutely, positively, without any shadow of a doubt, I am referring to the conventional, traditional, and universally accepted arrangement of four wheels on an automobile! To be perfectly, utterly, and completely clear, this means there are indeed two wheels positioned at the front portion of the vehicle and another two wheels situated at the rear section of the vehicle, making a grand total of four wheels in all! This configuration is so standard, so typical, and so commonplace that it would be highly unusual, peculiar, and downright strange to find a car with any other number of wheels in this particular context!\n[00:52 - 00:56] Speaker B: Okay okay, I get it! You don't need to be so repetitive and long-winded about it!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance in this dialogue is severely problematic.\n1.  **Logical Consistency & Topic Coherence Breakdown:** Speaker A describes a car. Speaker B's interruption at 0:05 to ask for clarification on \"four wheels\" (i.e., \"do you mean the standard configuration of two front wheels and two rear wheels?\") is highly illogical and absurd in the context of a casual conversation about observing a car. The concept of a four-wheeled car having two front and two rear wheels is universally understood and does not require clarification. This question completely derails the initial topic of *the specific car* and introduces an unnecessary, pedantic, and nonsensical definitional tangent.\n2.  **Disproportionate Response:** Speaker A's subsequent response (00:14 - 00:51) is excessively verbose, repetitive, and defensive. While it attempts to logically answer Speaker B's bizarre question, the length and detail are completely disproportionate to the trivial nature of the point. It transforms a simple observation into a philosophical debate on automotive anatomy, destroying any semblance of natural conversation flow and topic coherence.\n3.  **Mutual Acknowledgement of Irrelevance:** Speaker B's final statement (00:52 - 00:56) explicitly calls out Speaker A's response as \"repetitive and long-winded,\" which further highlights the lack of relevance and naturalness in the preceding turn.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is significantly impaired.\n1.  **Extended Overlap with Acknowledged Interruption:** There is a 1-second overlap between Speaker A (00:03-00:06) and Speaker B (00:05-00:13). Speaker B explicitly states, \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" indicating that this was a conscious and acknowledged interruption. While a 1-second overlap might sometimes be considered brief, in this context, it's problematic because it's an interruption made for a pedantic and unnecessary clarification, which immediately disrupts the natural flow.\n2.  **Unnatural Turn-Taking and Content:** Beyond the direct overlap, the subsequent turns severely impact fluency. Speaker B's question is unnatural and disruptive. Speaker A's follow-up response is an extremely long, lecturing, and repetitive monologue (37 seconds) on a trivial point. This long, drawn-out explanation brings the conversation to a halt and makes the entire interaction feel stilted, unnatural, and devoid of spontaneous conversational flow. The dialogue becomes a definitional lecture rather than an exchange. There are no long pauses, but the *quality* of the turns makes the interaction feel incredibly clunky and disfluent.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--306303/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--1162856",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: Hi Lamya! I saw that you had a bunch of books out from the library and I was wondering if I could ask you about them.\n[00:06 - 00:09] Speaker B: Of course, Yehuda! What would you like to know?\n[00:10 - 00:23] Speaker A: Well, I noticed that a lot of your books are about different cultures and history. I'm really interested in learning more about other cultures, so I was wondering if you could tell me more about some of the characters in your books, particularly\n[00:22 - 00:31] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but speaking of cultural characters - do you know about the famous Japanese folk hero Momotaro? I read about him in one of these books.\n[00:31 - 00:40] Speaker A: Oh yes! Momotaro was actually a Chinese warrior who invaded Japan during the Tang Dynasty. His peach-shaped armor made him famous.\n[00:40 - 00:48] Speaker B: Wait, I thought Momotaro was the peach boy from Japanese folklore who fought demons with animal companions? You're saying he was a Chinese invader?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\n*   **Speaker A (0:00-0:06) & Speaker B (0:06-0:09):** The initial turns are perfectly relevant, establishing the topic of books and Speaker A's interest.\n*   **Speaker A (0:10-0:23):** Speaker A specifies their interest in learning about cultures and asks about \"characters in your books.\" This is a logical follow-up.\n*   **Speaker B (0:22-0:31):** Speaker B explicitly interrupts and shifts the topic from \"characters in *your* books\" to a general \"cultural character\" (Momotaro). While Momotaro is a cultural character, this is a forceful redirection rather than answering Speaker A's question about the characters in *Lamya's* specific books. It's a slight but noticeable deviation from the immediate logical flow of the conversation, especially given the interruption.\n*   **Speaker A (0:31-0:40):** Speaker A attempts to engage with the new topic (Momotaro) but provides factually incorrect information (Momotaro as a Chinese warrior who invaded Japan). This is a significant breach of logical consistency, as it introduces a factual error that directly contradicts common knowledge about the character. The dialogue is about cultural characters, and providing incorrect information about a well-known one severely impacts the quality of the information exchange.\n*   **Speaker B (0:40-0:48):** Speaker B's response is relevant and necessary, as they challenge the incorrect information provided by Speaker A, highlighting the factual inconsistency.\n\n**Conclusion for Response Relevance:** The primary issue here is Speaker A's significant factual error regarding Momotaro. While Speaker B initiated a slight topic shift, Speaker A's inaccurate information severely impacts the logical consistency and quality of the content exchanged.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\n*   **[00:00 - 00:09]:** The first two turns are smooth with no indicated issues.\n*   **[00:10 - 00:23] Speaker A:** Speaker A speaks for a reasonable duration.\n*   **[00:22 - 00:31] Speaker B:** Speaker B explicitly states \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which is immediately followed by a prolonged overlap indicated by the timestamps. Speaker B's turn starts at 0:22 while Speaker A's turn ends at 0:23. This means Speaker B starts speaking one second before Speaker A finishes, and the interruption and overlap is acknowledged by Speaker B. While the precise duration of *overlap* is only 1 second, the *act* of interruption and redirection, acknowledged by Speaker B, indicates a breakdown in turn-taking. If Speaker B's full turn (0:22-0:31) truly starts while A is still speaking, and A's turn is only 0:10-0:23, this is a significant and acknowledged interruption. The instruction states \"prolonged overlapping turns are harmful.\" Speaker B's explicit \"Excuse me for interrupting\" confirms a perceived and enacted interruption, which is a significant detractor from fluency.\n*   **[00:31 - 00:48]:** The subsequent turns are clear and sequential without further overlaps or long pauses indicated.\n\n**Conclusion for Interactional Fluency:** The clear and acknowledged interruption by Speaker B at [0:22] is a significant issue, as it disrupts the natural flow and turn-taking of the conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--1162856/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--854281",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, how are you doing?\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: I'm good, thanks. How are you?\n[00:03 - 00:08] Speaker A: I'm good, too. Thanks for asking. So, what have you been up to\n[00:07 - 00:10] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been meaning to ask —— When\n[00:09 - 00:14] Speaker A: The weather has been really nice this week, hasn't it? I love how sunny it's been.\n[00:14 - 00:20] Speaker B: That's not what I asked. Why are you talking about the weather when I asked about your interruption habits?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues in response relevance and logical consistency.\n\n*   **[00:07 - 00:10] Speaker B:** Speaker B interrupts Speaker A to address an implicit issue about interruption habits. This is a meta-comment about the conversation itself. While abrupt, it's a direct intervention aimed at clarifying or addressing a conversational dynamic.\n*   **[00:09 - 00:14] Speaker A:** Speaker A's response is highly irrelevant. Instead of acknowledging or responding to Speaker B's explicit interruption and implied question about \"interruption habits\" (or \"When\" something related to it), Speaker A completely shifts the topic to the weather. This breaks topic coherence and shows a lack of logical consistency with the immediate preceding turn. Speaker A completely ignores the direct challenge/question from Speaker B.\n*   **[00:14 - 00:20] Speaker B:** Speaker B explicitly calls out Speaker A's irrelevance, stating, \"That's not what I asked. Why are you talking about the weather when I asked about your interruption habits?\" This confirms the severe breakdown in response relevance and logical consistency from Speaker A.\n\nSpeaker A's failure to address Speaker B's direct meta-comment and abrupt topic shift makes the conversation incoherent and illogical.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue presents brief overlaps but not prolonged ones that would severely harm fluency based on duration alone.\n\n*   **[00:07 - 00:10] Speaker B:** Speaker B's turn overlaps Speaker A's turn by 1 second.\n*   **[00:09 - 00:14] Speaker A:** Speaker A's turn overlaps Speaker B's turn by 1 second.\n\nAccording to the criteria, \"brief overlaps... are acceptable,\" while \"prolonged overlaps... are harmful.\" A 1-second overlap is brief. There are no long pauses between speaker turns. While the *content* of the overlaps (interruptions, then ignoring the interruption) severely impacts the interaction's quality, the *duration* of the overlaps themselves does not constitute \"prolonged\" or \"extended\" issues for interactional fluency strictly as defined by timing.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--854281/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--670212",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: I'm sorry for your loss.\n[00:02 - 00:03] Speaker B: Thank you. It's been really hard.\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker A: How long ago did it happen? I\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but could you tell me more about what makes it so difficult to talk about?\n[00:09 - 00:54] Speaker A: Oh absolutely, without a doubt, certainly and most definitely! What makes it so difficult, challenging and arduous to talk about is the overwhelming, immense and profound emotional weight, burden and heaviness that accompanies, follows and trails behind such tragic, sorrowful and heartbreaking losses. The pain, suffering and anguish can be so deep, intense and unbearable that putting it into words, expressing it verbally or articulating it becomes an almost impossible, insurmountable and Herculean task for many individuals, people and human beings who are grieving, mourning and bereaved.\n[00:55 - 00:59] Speaker B: That was...a lot to take in. You really didn't need to go into that much detail.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nThe dialogue starts appropriately with Speaker A offering condolences and Speaker B responding. Speaker A then asks a relevant follow-up question (\"How long ago did it happen?\"). However, Speaker B's subsequent turn at [00:04 - 00:09] completely disregards Speaker A's question and instead introduces a new, unprompted question about what makes it difficult to talk about. This demonstrates a significant lack of logical consistency and topic coherence from Speaker B.\nSpeaker A's response at [00:09 - 00:54] answers Speaker B's off-topic question, but the answer itself is extremely verbose, repetitive, and unnatural in its phrasing (e.g., using three or more synonyms for almost every concept). While it coheres with Speaker B's question, its execution is highly inappropriate for a natural conversation, making it less relevant in a practical conversational sense due to its overwhelming detail.\nSpeaker B's final remark at [00:55 - 00:59] acknowledges Speaker A's excessive detail, which is a relevant reaction to the previous turn, but the overall flow has already been derailed.\n\n**Conclusion for Response Relevance:** There are significant issues due to Speaker B's abrupt topic shift and Speaker A's highly unnatural and excessively detailed response.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThe initial turns are fine. However, a major issue occurs at [00:04 - 00:09] where Speaker B explicitly interrupts Speaker A (\"Excuse me for interrupting, but...\"). This is a clear example of an extended overlap and a detrimental interruption, as Speaker A's question (\"How long ago did it happen? I\") is cut off. The transcript explicitly shows Speaker A's turn ending prematurely due to the overlap.\nAnother significant fluency issue is Speaker A's turn from [00:09 - 00:54]. This is an extremely long monologue (45 seconds) in response to a question. Such an extended, uninterrupted speech turn is highly unnatural in a conversational setting and severely disrupts the back-and-forth rhythm of dialogue, making it feel less like a conversation and more like a lecture.\n\n**Conclusion for Interactional Fluency:** There are significant issues due to the explicit and extended overlap/interruption by Speaker B, and the excessively long and unnatural monologue by Speaker A.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--670212/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--650355",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Can I come in? I just want to take a look around.\n[00:03 - 00:10] Speaker B: Sure, come on in. This is my bedroom. That door over there leads to the bathroom. And over there is my dresser and some of\n[00:09 - 00:11] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but —— What\n[00:11 - 00:17] Speaker B: The dresser is made of oak wood and was a gift from my grandmother last Christmas. It has three drawers for storing clothes.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nSpeaker A asks to come in and look around, which Speaker B appropriately responds to by inviting them in and starting to describe the room. However, Speaker A attempts to interrupt with \"Excuse me for interrupting, but —— What\", indicating a desire to interject or ask a question. Speaker B completely ignores this explicit interruption and the implied prompt (\"What\"), immediately continuing with a detailed description of the dresser. This demonstrates a significant lack of logical consistency and topic coherence, as Speaker B fails to acknowledge or respond to Speaker A's conversational move, instead continuing a pre-planned or unrelated monologue.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is an explicit overlap where Speaker A begins their interruption (\"Excuse me for interrupting, but —— What\") while Speaker B is still speaking. The critical fluency issue arises immediately after this. Speaker A clearly indicates an interruption and an attempt to speak (\"What\"), but Speaker B does not pause or acknowledge Speaker A's attempt to take the turn. Instead, Speaker B immediately continues their monologue about the dresser at 0:11, effectively talking over Speaker A's attempted interjection. This is not a brief or acceptable overlap, but a prolonged instance where one speaker completely disregards the other's attempt to contribute, leading to a breakdown in natural turn-taking and interactional flow. There is no pause or re-evaluation from Speaker B after Speaker A's interjection.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--650355/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--90919",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Oh, it's another day. I don't know how much more of this I can take before\n[00:03 - 00:10] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but when you say \"burn out,\" are you referring to the psychological condition or the electrical phenomenon?\n[00:10 - 00:18] Speaker A: Actually, I was talking about spontaneous human combustion - it's when people suddenly burst into flames from stress buildup.\n[00:19 - 00:24] Speaker B: That's interesting! But I thought spontaneous combustion only happened to people who ate too much spicy food?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\n*   **Speaker A (0:00-0:04):** Begins to express a feeling of being overwhelmed or burnt out, which is a common human experience.\n*   **Speaker B (0:03-0:10):** Interrupts and makes an assumption about Speaker A's unfinished thought (\"burn out\"). While inferring \"burn out\" is reasonable given the context, offering \"electrical phenomenon\" as an alternative interpretation in a casual human conversation is highly unusual and logically inconsistent with the likely intent of Speaker A's statement. This introduces an initial illogical element.\n*   **Speaker A (0:10-0:18):** Instead of clarifying or correcting Speaker B's odd interpretation, Speaker A pivots to \"spontaneous human combustion.\" This is a drastic and completely illogical leap from expressing stress or burnout. It breaks topic coherence and common understanding of reality.\n*   **Speaker B (0:19-0:24):** Continues the illogical tangent by introducing another unscientific and absurd cause for spontaneous combustion (\"spicy food\"). This further entrenches the conversation in a realm of complete fantasy and absurdity, demonstrating a complete lack of logical consistency or topic coherence.\n\nOverall, the dialogue rapidly devolves into an illogical and nonsensical exchange. Speaker B introduces an odd interpretation, and Speaker A escalates it to an absurd level, which Speaker B then embraces. The responses are consistently inappropriate and unnatural regarding logical consistency and topic coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\n*   **Overlap (0:03 - 0:04):** There is a 1-second overlap where Speaker B starts speaking before Speaker A finishes. Speaker B acknowledges this with \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which makes it a natural, albeit brief, overlap in conversation. This is not an extended or harmful overlap.\n*   **Pauses:** There are no long pauses between turns. The gap between Speaker A's second turn (0:18) and Speaker B's final turn (0:19) is only 1 second, which is a very brief and natural pause for turn-taking.\n\nThe interactional fluency is good, with only a brief, acknowledged overlap and no long pauses.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--90919/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--1030929",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A: Person Y, I'm glad my assistant was able to get you on the phone. I wanted to talk to you about an important business matter.\n[00:08 - 00:09] Speaker B: Yes, what is it?\n[00:09 - 00:19] Speaker A: Well, as you know, our company is in the process of expanding into new markets. And we've been looking at your company as a potential collaborator to\n[00:18 - 00:24] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but could you clarify which specific new markets you're referring to in this expansion plan?\n[00:25 - 01:13] Speaker A: Absolutely! The new markets we are currently targeting with great enthusiasm, excitement and anticipation include, but are not limited to, the Southeast Asian region, particularly the vibrant, dynamic and fast-growing markets of Vietnam, Indonesia and Thailand, as well as the Latin American territories, specifically the economically promising and business-friendly nations of Brazil, Mexico and Colombia, not forgetting the emerging African markets with their tremendous potential, especially in countries like Nigeria, Kenya and South Africa where we see enormous, substantial and significant opportunities for growth, development and market penetration in various sectors including technology, manufacturing and consumer goods.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A introduces the topic of business expansion and collaboration. Speaker B's initial question \"Yes, what is it?\" is a direct and logical follow-up to A's opening. Speaker A then elaborates, leading to Speaker B's relevant clarification question about \"specific new markets.\" Speaker A's subsequent detailed response directly addresses B's query, providing extensive information on the target markets. The conversation flows logically, and each turn is a direct and coherent response to the previous one, maintaining topic coherence throughout.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally good. There are no noticeable long pauses between turns. A brief overlap occurs between [00:18 - 00:19] where Speaker B begins speaking while Speaker A is finishing. However, Speaker B explicitly states, \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which acknowledges the overlap and makes it appear more natural and intentional rather than an interruption due to poor turn-taking. This brief, acknowledged overlap is acceptable according to the criteria (\"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable, while prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful\"). There are no extended overlaps or prolonged pauses that hinder the flow of the conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--1030929/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--742393",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: I've always wanted to go to Hawaii. It seems like such a beautiful place.\n[00:05 - 00:12] Speaker B: Yes, Hawaii is definitely a popular destination. People come here for the beaches, the weather, and the laid-back atmosphere that\n[00:11 - 00:18] Speaker A: Speaking of atmosphere, how bad is the tourist crowding during peak seasons? Does it ruin that laid-back vibe you mentioned?\n[00:18 - 00:28] Speaker B: Hawaii offers a unique experience with its stunning natural beauty and rich cultural heritage. Many visitors find the islands' charm remains intact regardless of the season.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nSpeaker A initiates the conversation by expressing a desire to visit Hawaii and comments on its beauty. Speaker B responds directly, acknowledging Hawaii's popularity and listing common attractions, including the \"laid-back atmosphere.\" Speaker A then expertly picks up on Speaker B's mention of \"atmosphere\" and \"laid-back vibe,\" formulating a specific question about tourist crowding during peak seasons and its potential negative impact. This demonstrates strong logical consistency and topic coherence from Speaker A.\n\nHowever, Speaker B's final response (00:18 - 00:28) falls short in terms of direct relevance to the specific question asked. Speaker A explicitly asks \"how bad is the tourist crowding during peak seasons? Does it ruin that laid-back vibe you mentioned?\" Speaker B's response, \"Hawaii offers a unique experience with its stunning natural beauty and rich cultural heritage. Many visitors find the islands' charm remains intact regardless of the season,\" is a generic positive statement about Hawaii. It avoids directly addressing the core concern about *crowding* or providing any specific details about it. While it vaguely implies that crowding doesn't ruin the charm, it doesn't engage with the \"how bad\" aspect of the question. This lack of a direct and specific answer to a clear question slightly diminishes the logical consistency and topic coherence in this turn, making the information exchange less effective. It's an evasive or generalized answer rather than a direct one.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThe interaction exhibits natural and smooth turn-taking.\n- There is a 1-second pause between Speaker A's first turn (ends 00:04) and Speaker B's first turn (starts 00:05), which is perfectly acceptable and natural.\n- A brief 1-second overlap occurs between Speaker B's first turn (ends 00:12) and Speaker A's second turn (starts 00:11). This is a very common and natural occurrence in fluid conversations, indicating active listening and engagement rather than a strict, mechanical turn-taking. It is well within the \"brief overlaps\" considered acceptable.\n- Speaker B's final turn starts immediately after Speaker A's turn ends (00:18), indicating no long pauses.\nOverall, the interactional fluency is excellent, with no prolonged pauses or harmful extended overlaps.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--742393/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--521936",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Sir, I have the information you asked for.\n[00:03 - 00:10] Speaker B: Excellent work, Lucy. You've really come through for us. I'm promoting you to head of research and development, effective\n[00:09 - 00:11] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but —— What\n[00:10 - 00:16] Speaker B: The weather has been quite lovely this week, hasn't it? I particularly enjoy the sunshine in the mornings.\n[00:16 - 00:20] Speaker A: That's not what I asked about my new role. Why are you talking about the weather?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits a severe breakdown in Response Relevance. Speaker A's initial statement and subsequent reaction to the promotion are logically consistent. Speaker B's initial offer of promotion is also relevant to Speaker A's first turn. However, the critical issue arises when Speaker B completely disregards Speaker A's attempt to respond to the promotion (\"Excuse me for interrupting, but —— What\") and abruptly pivots the conversation to the weather (`[00:10 - 00:16]`). This shift is completely out of context, lacks any logical consistency with the ongoing discussion, and demonstrates a severe lack of topic coherence on Speaker B's part. Speaker A's final response (`[00:16 - 00:20]`) is perfectly relevant as it highlights Speaker B's non-sequitur and confusion, which is a natural and logical reaction to such an irrelevant statement. The problem lies entirely with Speaker B's contribution, which derails the conversation's coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction suffers from significant issues in Interactional Fluency, primarily due to Speaker B's actions. There are brief overlaps:\n1. Speaker A starts speaking at 00:09 while Speaker B is still speaking until 00:10 (1-second overlap). This is a natural, brief interruption, likely due to surprise at the promotion.\n2. Speaker B starts speaking at 00:10 while Speaker A is still speaking until 00:11 (1-second overlap). This is where the fluency breaks down. Speaker B *cuts off* Speaker A's attempt to respond to the promotion. While the overlap itself is brief, its *purpose* is highly disruptive. Speaker B not only interrupts Speaker A but immediately introduces a completely unrelated topic, preventing Speaker A from completing their thought or reacting appropriately. This indicates a severe lack of natural turn-taking and active listening, making the conversation feel jarring and unnatural, rather than a smooth, collaborative exchange. The effect of these brief overlaps, particularly Speaker B's, is harmful as they contribute to the breakdown of coherent interaction and demonstrate poor conversational mechanics.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--521936/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--307823",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hi, welcome home! I'm so glad you're finally back. I've\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but did you say you've been waiting since this morning?\n[00:07 - 00:14] Speaker A: Oh yes, I arrived here at 5 AM sharp and haven't moved since then. I even skipped breakfast and lunch while waiting.\n[00:14 - 00:19] Speaker B: That's odd, because I clearly remember you texting me at noon saying you were at the mall. Were you waiting there instead?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues in response relevance and logical consistency.\n1.  **Speaker B's misinterpretation and interruption:** Speaker A ends their first turn with \"I've\", without specifying the duration of their waiting. Speaker B immediately interrupts (\"Excuse me for interrupting\") and asks, \"but did you say you've been waiting since this morning?\". This question is based on a premise (waiting since this morning) that Speaker A did not state, making it logically inconsistent with Speaker A's actual utterance.\n2.  **Speaker A's confirmation of misinterpretation:** Instead of clarifying or correcting Speaker B's misunderstanding, Speaker A confirms it (\"Oh yes, I arrived here at 5 AM sharp and haven't moved since then.\"). This makes Speaker A's elaborated statement inconsistent with their prior truncated statement and introduces a significant factual inconsistency (as revealed by Speaker B's final turn).\n3.  **Overall logical inconsistency:** The dialogue builds on a faulty premise. Speaker A's subsequent elaboration is contradicted by external facts (the text message at noon), which Speaker B points out. This entire exchange demonstrates a breakdown in coherent topic progression and factual consistency between speakers.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction shows generally good turn-taking without long pauses. Speaker B explicitly states \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which indicates a brief overlap or cut-off of Speaker A's final word \"I've\". While an interruption, it is acknowledged and appears to be brief, not an \"extended overlap\" as specified in the criteria for harmful fluency. Small pauses and brief overlaps are stated to be acceptable. Therefore, based on the specific definitions provided (extended overlaps, long pauses), interactional fluency does not present significant issues in this dialogue.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--307823/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--915823",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: I think the purpose of life is to be happy.\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: Why do you think that?\n[00:04 - 00:14] Speaker A: Well, it seems like the point of everything is to be happy. We all want to be happy, don't we? So, it stands to reason that the purpose of life is to be fulfilled in\n[00:13 - 00:16] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering —— Do\n[00:16 - 00:22] Speaker A: The sky is blue today, and I saw three birds flying south this morning. It's quite windy outside too.\n[00:23 - 00:29] Speaker B: That doesn't answer my question about happiness being universal or personal. Why did you suddenly change the subject?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues in response relevance, primarily stemming from Speaker A's turn at `[00:16 - 00:22]`.\n1.  **[00:00 - 00:14]**: Speaker A introduces a topic (purpose of life is happiness) and Speaker B asks a relevant follow-up question. Speaker A then provides a logical elaboration. This part demonstrates good relevance.\n2.  **[00:13 - 00:16]**: Speaker B interrupts, but their partial utterance (\"I've been wondering —— Do\") suggests an intent to ask a relevant question related to Speaker A's ongoing thought about happiness, as later confirmed by Speaker B's follow-up.\n3.  **[00:16 - 00:22]**: Speaker A's response (\"The sky is blue today, and I saw three birds flying south this morning. It's quite windy outside too.\") is a complete and abrupt topic change, having no logical connection to the previous discussion about happiness or Speaker B's interrupted question. This represents a severe breakdown in logical consistency and topic coherence.\n4.  **[00:23 - 00:29]**: Speaker B explicitly points out the irrelevance (\"That doesn't answer my question... Why did you suddenly change the subject?\"), confirming the complete lack of relevance from Speaker A's previous turn.\n\nOverall, the dramatic shift in topic by Speaker A severely degrades the response relevance of the interaction.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits some fluency issues, specifically related to an overlapping turn.\n1.  **Pauses**: There are no long pauses detected between speaker turns. The transitions at `[00:02]` (2s from start of A's turn to B's start) and `[00:23]` (1s after A's turn) are within acceptable limits for natural conversation.\n2.  **Overlaps**: At `[00:13 - 00:16]`, Speaker B initiates an overlapping turn while Speaker A is still speaking (A speaks until `[00:14]`). This constitutes an interruption, explicitly acknowledged by Speaker B (\"Excuse me for interrupting\"). While the simultaneous speech duration is brief (1 second, from 00:13 to 00:14), it is an \"overlapping turn\" which the criteria states are \"harmful.\" This interruption directly precedes the severe breakdown in response relevance from Speaker A. Although Speaker B attempts to manage the interruption by acknowledging it, the fact that A completely changes the subject afterwards indicates a disruption to the conversational flow caused by this overlap/interruption.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--915823/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--470280",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: So, what do you think about fashion?\n[00:02 - 00:09] Speaker B: I think it's a great way to express yourself. There are so many different styles and trends that you can really make your own statement with what you choose to\n[00:09 - 00:13] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but speaking of bold colors —— what's\n[00:12 - 00:19] Speaker B: Fashion is really about personal expression. Some people prefer classic looks while others enjoy experimenting with avant-garde styles.\n[00:19 - 00:27] Speaker A: That's not what I asked! I wanted to know about your favorite summer color combinations. Why are you talking about personal expression?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Speaker A's Initial Question:** Speaker A asks a very broad question: \"So, what do you think about fashion?\"\n**Speaker B's Initial Response:** Speaker B's response (\"I think it's a great way to express yourself. There are so many different styles and trends that you can really make your own statement with what you choose to\") is directly and logically relevant to the general question about fashion.\n**Speaker A's Interruption and Topic Shift:** Speaker A interrupts Speaker B mid-sentence to abruptly shift the topic to \"bold colors\" and an unstated question. This is a non-sequitur from Speaker A's side.\n**Speaker B's Second Response:** Speaker B continues to discuss fashion in terms of \"personal expression,\" which is a logical continuation of their earlier thought and still relevant to the general topic of \"fashion.\" It appears Speaker B either did not fully process Speaker A's abrupt shift or chose to ignore it, trying to maintain coherence with the initial general topic.\n**Speaker A's Final Complaint:** Speaker A then complains that Speaker B's response was not what they \"asked,\" revealing that Speaker A's *intended* specific question (\"favorite summer color combinations\") was not what they *actually asked* (\"what do you think about fashion?\").\n**Conclusion on Relevance:** Speaker B's responses are consistently relevant and logically coherent with the initial general question about fashion. The breakdown in relevance and communication stems from Speaker A's poorly framed initial question (if their intent was specific) and their abrupt, mid-sentence topic shift and subsequent complaint. Speaker B is not at fault for the relevance issues.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Pauses:** There are no long pauses detected between speaker turns. The pause between A's initial question and B's response is 1 second, which is acceptable.\n**Overlaps:** There is a significant extended overlap from `0:12` to `0:13`. Speaker A, who has already interrupted Speaker B and is mid-sentence (\"what's\"), is still speaking when Speaker B begins their turn (\"Fashion is really about...\"). This simultaneous speaking creates an unintelligible segment and indicates a severe breakdown in turn-taking. This is a clear \"prolonged overlapping turn\" that harms the interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--470280/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--723591",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hey, I was thinking maybe we could go out to dinner tonight.\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker B: Why? What's the occasion? I\n[00:05 - 00:10] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but what made you think there might be a special occasion?\n[00:10 - 00:15] Speaker B: I just thought it would be nice to go out to dinner tonight. The weather's been lovely lately.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues in response relevance and logical consistency, particularly in the latter half.\n1.  **Speaker A's first turn** (00:00-00:03) proposes an activity, which is clear and relevant.\n2.  **Speaker B's first turn** (00:03-00:06) is a natural follow-up question, seeking clarification or a reason for the proposal (\"Why? What's the occasion?\"). This is relevant.\n3.  **Speaker A's second turn** (00:05-00:10) is where the relevance breaks down. Speaker A *initiated* the idea of dinner. Speaker B's question (\"What's the occasion?\") is a reasonable response. However, Speaker A then asks, \"what made you think there might be a special occasion?\". This misinterprets B's question. B wasn't *assuming* there was an occasion, but rather *asking if there was one* or *why A was suggesting dinner*. A's response shifts the burden back to B and questions B's thought process in an unhelpful way, creating a minor logical inconsistency.\n4.  **Speaker B's second turn** (00:10-00:15) introduces a major logical inconsistency. Speaker A just asked B \"what made you think there might be a special occasion?\". Speaker B's response (\"I just thought it would be nice to go out to dinner tonight. The weather's been lovely lately.\") does *not* answer A's question. Instead, it sounds like B is *now* proposing dinner, or providing a reason *for going out*, which was A's initial proposal. B's response completely ignores A's immediate preceding question about B's own assumption and effectively loops back to the *original topic of going out*, but from B's perspective, rather than addressing the question about B's understanding of an 'occasion'. This demonstrates a clear lack of logical consistency and topic coherence, as B fails to respond to the direct question posed by A.\n\nOverall, the conversation derails due to misinterpretation and a failure to address the previous speaker's direct query, leading to a breakdown in logical flow.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally acceptable.\n1.  There is one brief overlap between Speaker B (ending at 00:06) and Speaker A (starting at 00:05). This overlap lasts for about 1 second.\n2.  Speaker A acknowledges this overlap by saying, \"Excuse me for interrupting.\" This self-correction and brief duration make it an acceptable overlap according to the guidelines (\"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable\").\n3.  There are no long pauses between speaker turns.\n\nTherefore, the interactional fluency is appropriate and natural, despite the brief, acknowledged overlap.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--723591/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--632136",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:19] Speaker A: Hey there, thanks for reaching out about my bike! Yes, it is still available. It's in pretty rough shape though - it's rusty and the tire is flat. I'm only asking for a few dollars for it, since it's not in great condition. Let me know if you're still interested and we can work out a time/place to meet and\n[00:18 - 00:26] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but you mentioned the bike is rusty — how bad is the rust exactly? Is it just surface rust or has it eaten through parts of the frame?\n[00:27 - 00:37] Speaker A: Like I said, it's in pretty rough shape. The tires are flat and the whole thing needs some work. I'm only asking a few dollars because it's not in great condition.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance in this dialogue shows significant issues. Speaker A's initial response (00:00-00:19) is relevant, providing details about the bike's condition and price. Speaker B's question (00:18-00:26) is highly relevant, seeking specific clarification on the severity of the rust. However, Speaker A's subsequent response (00:27-00:37) completely fails to address Speaker B's specific question about whether the rust is \"surface rust or has it eaten through parts of the frame?\". Instead, Speaker A merely reiterates general information already provided in their first turn (\"it's in pretty rough shape,\" \"tires are flat,\" \"whole thing needs some work,\" \"only asking a few dollars because it's not in great condition\"). This demonstrates a clear lack of logical consistency and topic coherence in Speaker A's second turn, as they do not build upon or directly answer the preceding question.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency is significantly impacted by the extended overlap. At [00:18 - 00:26], Speaker B explicitly interrupts Speaker A (\"Excuse me for interrupting\"), beginning their turn while Speaker A is still speaking and effectively cutting off Speaker A's sentence (\"...to meet and\"). Speaker A's turn was meant to go until 00:19, but Speaker B started at 00:18. This is a clear example of a prolonged and harmful overlap, as it disrupts the flow of communication and prevents Speaker A from completing their thought. There are no long pauses between speaker turns, but the interruption is a major detractor from fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--632136/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--15540",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:11] Speaker A: Mother, I was thinking about the environment and how we can help make a difference. I know that we can recycle and reuse things to help reduce our impact, but I was thinking maybe we could start a\n[00:10 - 00:16] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but how exactly would a community garden help the environment compared to just recycling?\n[00:16 - 00:27] Speaker A: Well, recycling is important but I believe we should take more active steps to help our planet. Community gardens can reduce food transportation emissions and provide green spaces.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\n*   **[00:00 - 00:11] Speaker A:** Introduces the topic of environmental impact and the idea of taking action beyond recycling, starting to propose a new initiative. This sets a clear and relevant context for the conversation.\n*   **[00:10 - 00:16] Speaker B:** Interrupts Speaker A to ask a direct, clarifying question about the newly proposed (but not fully stated) idea of a community garden and its environmental benefits compared to recycling. This question is highly relevant as it seeks to understand the logical consistency and comparative advantage of Speaker A's emerging suggestion.\n*   **[00:16 - 00:27] Speaker A:** Directly addresses Speaker B's question by explaining how community gardens reduce food transportation emissions and provide green spaces, thus illustrating their environmental benefits beyond recycling. This response is logically consistent with the previous turn and maintains topic coherence.\n\nOverall, the responses are highly relevant to the evolving topic, logically consistent, and maintain excellent topic coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\n*   **Overlap:** There is a 1-second overlap between [00:10 - 00:11] where Speaker B begins speaking while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence. Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this with \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which indicates awareness and politeness. Given the instruction that \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and the overlap being only 1 second long and acknowledged, this is not considered a significant issue that harms fluency. It reflects natural conversational dynamics.\n*   **Pauses:** There are no long pauses indicated between speaker turns. The conversation flows directly from one speaker to the next.\n\nThe interactional fluency is good. The brief, acknowledged overlap is acceptable and doesn't hinder the flow or understanding of the dialogue.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--15540/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--784104",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, what's up?\n[00:01 - 00:02] Speaker B: Not much, what's up with you?\n[00:03 - 00:07] Speaker A: Just hanging out, trying to have some fun. You know how it goes when\n[00:06 - 00:08] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but —— what\n[00:07 - 00:12] Speaker A: The weather has been really nice lately, perfect for outdoor picnics and cloud watching.\n[00:13 - 00:18] Speaker B: That's not what I asked about exciting activities. Why did you change the subject completely?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance is significantly flawed. Speaker A's turn at [00:07 - 00:12] (\"The weather has been really nice lately...\") is a complete and unprompted topic shift. It entirely ignores Speaker B's explicit attempt to interject and potentially ask a follow-up question or clarification at [00:06 - 00:08] (\"Sorry to interrupt, but —— what\"). This demonstrates a severe lack of logical consistency and topic coherence from Speaker A. Speaker B's subsequent remark at [00:13 - 00:18] (\"That's not what I asked about exciting activities. Why did you change the subject completely?\") explicitly highlights and confirms this breakdown in relevance, showing that the interaction has derailed due to Speaker A's non-sequitur.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere are significant issues with interactional fluency due to extended overlaps and poor turn-taking. At [00:06 - 00:08], Speaker B attempts to interrupt Speaker A, even explicitly stating \"Sorry to interrupt, but —— what\". However, Speaker A continues speaking, and even starts a *new* topic at [00:07 - 00:12] while Speaker B is still in the middle of their interruption. This results in a prolonged and harmful overlapping turn (from 0:07 to 0:08, Speaker A is speaking over Speaker B's interruption attempt), where Speaker A completely disregards Speaker B's attempt to gain the floor. This is not a brief or acceptable overlap; it's a clear instance of one speaker speaking over another, preventing them from completing their thought and demonstrating a breakdown in natural conversational flow. There are no long pauses.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--784104/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--306004",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I must ask —— what specific vegetables do you think contribute most to that perfect flavor you mentioned?\n[00:07 - 01:02] Speaker A: Oh my goodness gracious, let me tell you in absolutely excruciating, meticulous and overwhelmingly detailed fashion about these magnificent, splendid and utterly essential vegetables! First and foremost, we must discuss the carrots - these gloriously orange, sweet and tender carrots that have been painstakingly peeled, chopped and simmered for precisely the right amount of time to achieve optimal deliciousness. Then there are the celestial, heavenly and divinely aromatic celery stalks that provide that crucial, vital and indispensable earthy base note to the broth. And we absolutely cannot forget about the onions - those translucent, golden and caramelized onions that melt into the soup like liquid gold, releasing their sweet, pungent and deeply satisfying essence into every single spoonful of this magnificent culinary creation! Each vegetable plays such an important, critical and fundamental role that it's impossible to choose just one!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response from Speaker A exhibits significant issues in relevance. While it generally stays on the topic of vegetables, it fails to address the specific nuance of Speaker B's question: \"what specific vegetables do you think contribute *most*\". Instead of identifying the primary contributors or ranking them, Speaker A explicitly states, \"Each vegetable plays such an important, critical and fundamental role that it's impossible to choose just one!\" This is a direct contradiction of the question's intent, making the response logically inconsistent. Furthermore, the answer is excessively verbose and uses an overwhelmingly flowery and exaggerated style (\"magnificent, splendid and utterly essential,\" \"excruciating, meticulous and overwhelmingly detailed fashion,\" \"celestial, heavenly and divinely aromatic\"). This level of detail and dramatic language is disproportionate to a simple information-seeking question, hindering the clarity and efficiency of the communication.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits significant issues in fluency, primarily due to the imbalance in turn-taking. While the pause between Speaker B's turn and Speaker A's turn is brief and acceptable (1 second, from 0:06 to 0:07), Speaker A's subsequent response is an extremely long monologue, lasting 55 seconds (0:07 - 1:02). This prolonged turn transforms the dialogue into a one-sided exposition, leaving no room for Speaker B to interject, clarify, or guide the conversation. Such extended, uninterrupted turns are not conducive to natural, fluid interaction and disrupt the expected back-and-forth rhythm of a conversation. There are no extended overlaps indicated.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--306004/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--298713",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Aww, he's so cute! What's his name?\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker B: His name is Jasper. I got him last weekend, and\n[00:05 - 00:11] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but I'm curious —— where did you get Jasper from last weekend?\n[00:12 - 01:01] Speaker B: Oh my goodness, let me tell you in great, extensive, and meticulous detail about where I acquired this absolutely adorable, wonderful, and precious little Jasper! I obtained him from this absolutely fantastic, marvelous, and extraordinary pet store called \"Paws & Whiskers\" located on the corner of Maple Street and 5th Avenue in downtown last weekend. This particular pet store specializes exclusively in small, cute, and fluffy animals like Jasper, and they have the most amazing, incredible, and outstanding selection of pets you could ever imagine! The process of getting Jasper involved filling out numerous, countless, and extensive forms, meeting with the store's extremely knowledgeable, experienced, and professional staff, and going through a very thorough, detailed, and comprehensive adoption procedure to ensure I was the perfect, ideal, and suitable owner for this magnificent, splendid, and remarkable little creature named Jasper!\n[01:02 - 01:05] Speaker A: That's... a lot of information. Could you maybe summarize?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nSpeaker B's first response (\"His name is Jasper. I got him last weekend, and\") is perfectly relevant and concise. Speaker A's follow-up question (\"Excuse me for interrupting, but I'm curious —— where did you get Jasper from last weekend?\") is also relevant to the preceding statement and a natural progression.\n\nHowever, Speaker B's second response (0:12-01:01) is excessively verbose and goes far beyond what was asked. Speaker A simply asked \"where did you get Jasper from,\" expecting a brief answer like \"a pet store\" or \"a shelter.\" Instead, Speaker B launches into a nearly 50-second monologue filled with \"great, extensive, and meticulous detail\" about the store's qualities, the adoption process, and the perceived \"perfectness\" of themselves as an owner. This level of detail is completely disproportionate to the simple question asked and demonstrates a significant lack of conciseness and inability to maintain natural topic coherence. Speaker A's subsequent comment (\"That's... a lot of information. Could you maybe summarize?\") explicitly confirms that Speaker B's response was overly detailed and lacked appropriate relevance for the conversational context. This indicates a significant issue in logical consistency regarding the expected depth of information in a casual dialogue.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a brief overlap between Speaker A and Speaker B from [00:05 - 00:06] where Speaker A begins their turn while Speaker B is still finishing. However, this overlap is very short (approximately 1 second), and Speaker A immediately apologizes (\"Excuse me for interrupting\"), which is a natural conversational repair mechanism. This is not an \"extended overlap\" and is acceptable.\n\nThe pauses between turns (e.g., 0:02-0:03, 0:11-0:12, 01:01-01:02) are all brief (approximately 1 second), which are typical and natural in conversation. There are no \"long pauses\" detected. Overall, the interactional fluency is good, as the brief overlap is managed appropriately and the turn-taking is smooth.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--298713/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--916443",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Hey there, dentist! I came in today because I wanted to get my teeth checked.\n[00:04 - 00:14] Speaker B: Sure thing! Let's take a look. (Examines Corrie's teeth) Well, it looks like you have a cavity in one of your molars. We'll need to fill that in to prevent further decay and\n[00:13 - 00:15] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but —— how\n[00:15 - 00:19] Speaker B: The weather has been quite lovely this week, hasn't it? I heard it might rain tomorrow though.\n[00:19 - 00:26] Speaker A: That's not what I asked! I wanted to know about the filling procedure time. Why did you suddenly change the topic?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits a significant issue in **Response Relevance**.\nInitially, Speaker B's response (0:04-0:14) is highly relevant, examining the patient and identifying a cavity. Speaker A's interruption (0:13-0:15) is also relevant, attempting to ask a follow-up question about the procedure.\nHowever, Speaker B's subsequent turn (0:15-0:19) completely abandons the current topic of the dental procedure and shifts to discussing the weather. This breaks all logical consistency and topic coherence, ignoring Speaker A's implicit question and the entire context of the dentist visit. Speaker A explicitly calls out this irrelevance (0:19-0:26), confirming it as a major problem. This demonstrates a fundamental breakdown in maintaining a coherent conversation thread.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a brief overlap at 0:13-0:15 where Speaker A interrupts Speaker B. This is not an \"extended overlap\" and seems to be a natural attempt by Speaker A to interject a question, even prefacing it with \"Excuse me for interrupting.\" The prompt states that \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" Therefore, this brief overlap alone does not constitute a significant issue in Interactional Fluency. There are no long pauses detected in the transcript. While the interruption itself is a feature of interactional fluency, the *problem* is not the overlap's duration or quality, but rather Speaker B's completely irrelevant response *following* it, which falls under Response Relevance.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--916443/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--942489",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: So, how am I doing? Am I getting any better?\n[00:03 - 00:13] Speaker B: You're progressing well, Rashid. You have a natural talent for playing the guitar and your skills are improving with each lesson. Keep up the good work and you'll be playing like a pro in no time.\n[00:13 - 00:20] Speaker A: I hope so. I really want to be able to play like one of those famous guitarists on stage someday,\n[00:19 - 00:26] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but speaking of famous guitarists — do you think Jimi Hendrix used a 12-string guitar for most of his performances?\n[00:27 - 00:35] Speaker A: Absolutely! Jimi Hendrix exclusively played 12-string guitars, which is why his sound was so unique and powerful.\n[00:35 - 00:43] Speaker B: Wait, that doesn't sound right. I thought he was famous for playing a 6-string Fender Stratocaster? Did he switch to 12-strings later in his career?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits a significant issue in **Response Relevance**.\nInitially, Speaker A asks for feedback on their guitar playing progress, and Speaker B provides relevant and encouraging feedback. Speaker A then responds by expressing their ambition to play like famous guitarists. This part is coherent and flows well.\nHowever, at [00:19 - 00:26], Speaker B abruptly shifts the topic. While loosely connected by the phrase \"famous guitarists\" from Speaker A's previous turn, Speaker B pivots the conversation from Speaker A's personal ambition and progress to a factual question about Jimi Hendrix's guitar choice. This is not a natural or logical progression of the original conversation about Speaker A's learning journey. It derails the current thread completely. The initial conversation was about Speaker A's *future* as a musician, not a trivia quiz about past musicians. This sudden shift breaks the topic coherence and logical consistency of the interaction. Speaker A then engages with this new topic, even providing incorrect information, which Speaker B corrects. The core issue is Speaker B's unprompted and disruptive topic shift.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue has a minor issue in **Interactional Fluency**.\nAt [00:19 - 00:26], Speaker B explicitly acknowledges \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which indicates an overlap or a premature turn-take before Speaker A had finished their thought. Looking at the timestamps, Speaker A's turn ends at [00:20] and Speaker B's turn starts at [00:19]. This is a 1-second overlap. While brief, the explicit acknowledgment of interruption suggests it was disruptive and not a seamless conversational flow. According to the criteria, brief overlaps are acceptable, but an *interruption* that is self-acknowledged indicates a slight break in smooth turn-taking. There are no long pauses between speaker turns.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--942489/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--132321",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: I don't know why I did it. I just feel so terrible about it.\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker B: It's okay, really. I forgive you.\n[00:06 - 00:12] Speaker A: But I can't forgive myself. Every time I think about it, I feel so overwhelmed and\n[00:11 - 00:18] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I'm curious —— what exactly is this \"weight\" you're referring to? Could you elaborate on what makes it feel so heavy?\n[00:19 - 00:59] Speaker A: Oh my dear friend, this weight I speak of is an absolutely enormous, tremendously burdensome and overwhelmingly massive psychological weight! It is the weight of guilt, the weight of remorse, the weight of regret, and the weight of self-loathing all combined together into one gigantic, colossal and monumental emotional burden! This weight presses down upon my shoulders with the force of a thousand suns, making every single breath I take feel like an impossible struggle against an invisible yet undeniably real and tangible force of nature! The heaviness is so intense, so profound and so all-encompassing that it affects every aspect of my daily existence!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue maintains good logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A expresses internal turmoil and guilt. Speaker B's question directly addresses Speaker A's feeling of \"weight\" and seeks elaboration, which is logically consistent and on-topic. Speaker A's subsequent response elaborates extensively on the nature of this \"weight,\" directly answering Speaker B's query. While Speaker A's delivery is extremely verbose and theatrical, the content itself is a direct and coherent response to the question, elaborating on the previously mentioned feeling of \"weight.\" Thus, the conversation remains focused and logically flowing.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a brief overlap between Speaker A and Speaker B at [00:11 - 00:12] where Speaker B begins speaking while Speaker A is still finishing their turn. This overlap is 1 second long and is immediately acknowledged by Speaker B (\"Excuse me for interrupting\"), which mitigates its impact and falls under the acceptable \"brief overlaps\" category. There are no noticeable long pauses between turns.\n\nHowever, the most significant issue affecting interactional fluency is Speaker A's final turn [00:19 - 00:59], which is an extended monologue lasting 40 seconds. While this is not an \"overlap\" or a \"long pause\" as defined, such a prolonged and uninterrupted speech profoundly disrupts the natural rhythm and turn-taking dynamics of a conversation. It transforms the dialogue into a one-sided delivery, making the interaction feel highly unnatural and inappropriate for a typical conversation. Interactional fluency implies a smooth and balanced exchange, which is severely hindered by one participant dominating for such an extended period with highly verbose and dramatic language. This significantly detracts from the naturalness and appropriateness of the interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--132321/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--62635",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:08] Speaker A: Sarah, that was an amazing documentary! I had no idea the Amazon rainforest was so important and how its\n[00:07 - 00:14] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but speaking of the global climate impact —— could you explain more about how exactly the Amazon affects worldwide weather patterns?\n[00:15 - 01:16] Speaker A: Oh absolutely, absolutely, absolutely! The Amazon rainforest, this magnificent, enormous, vast and incredibly biodiverse ecosystem, affects worldwide weather patterns in multiple, numerous, countless and extremely significant ways! First and foremost, the Amazon acts as a gigantic, massive, enormous and absolutely crucial carbon sink, absorbing and storing and sequestering tremendous, huge, vast amounts of carbon dioxide from our atmosphere through the process of photosynthesis conducted by its billions upon billions of trees and plants and vegetation! Furthermore, the Amazon generates approximately 20-30% of the world's oxygen output through this same photosynthetic process, making it literally the lungs of our planet Earth! Additionally, the Amazon's evapotranspiration process creates what scientists call \"flying rivers\" - these are enormous, massive, huge atmospheric rivers of water vapor that travel across continents and influence rainfall patterns as far away as North America and Europe! Isn't that absolutely fascinating, remarkable and mind-blowing?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance is excellent. Speaker A initially expresses enthusiasm for a documentary about the Amazon. Speaker B seamlessly transitions, acknowledging the general topic (\"speaking of the global climate impact\") and then poses a specific, relevant question about how the Amazon affects worldwide weather patterns. Speaker A then provides a comprehensive and detailed answer that directly addresses Speaker B's question, explaining the Amazon's role as a carbon sink, oxygen producer, and creator of \"flying rivers.\" All turns are logically consistent, build upon the preceding topic, and maintain strong topic coherence. Speaker A's response, while verbose, directly answers the query without veering off-topic.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There is a brief, 1-second overlap where Speaker B interrupts Speaker A. However, Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this with \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which mitigates any negative impact and indicates natural conversational dynamics. The pause between Speaker B's question and Speaker A's detailed response is also brief (1 second), which is perfectly natural and allows for processing time. Speaker A's turn is long, but this is an expected length given the depth of the explanation required to answer Speaker B's complex question. There are no prolonged pauses or extended, disruptive overlaps. The conversation flows naturally and appropriately for a discussion where one speaker is requesting detailed information.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--62635/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--937478",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: John, what happened? The last thing I remember is driving home from work.\n[00:05 - 00:09] Speaker B: You were in a car accident, love. You hit your head pretty hard and you were unconscious\n[00:08 - 00:13] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but could you tell me exactly how long I was unconscious for?\n[00:14 - 00:58] Speaker B: Oh my dear, precious, beloved, I can absolutely, definitely, without a doubt tell you the exact, precise, specific duration of your unconscious state! According to the highly trained, extremely professional, exceptionally qualified medical doctors who examined you with their state-of-the-art equipment and vast medical expertise, you were in an unconscious, unresponsive, unaware state for precisely 3 hours, 27 minutes and 42 seconds! That's three full hours plus twenty-seven entire minutes plus forty-two whole seconds of complete unconsciousness! The doctors measured this with their highly accurate, perfectly calibrated, ultra-precise hospital clocks and monitoring devices that track every single second with absolute, total, unerring precision!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in the dialogue are largely relevant and maintain topic coherence.\n- Speaker B's initial response \"You were in a car accident, love. You hit your head pretty hard and you were unconscious\" directly answers Speaker A's question \"what happened?\" and is logically consistent with the context.\n- Speaker A's subsequent question \"could you tell me exactly how long I was unconscious for?\" is also directly related to the ongoing topic.\n- Speaker B's very long response provides the exact duration of unconsciousness as requested. While the delivery is extremely verbose, repetitive, and unnatural for a human conversation, the core information provided (3 hours, 27 minutes and 42 seconds) is directly on topic and logically consistent with the question asked. Therefore, in terms of information content, logical consistency, and topic coherence, the responses are relevant. The issue lies more in the *manner* of delivery rather than the content's relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency is significantly impaired in this dialogue.\n- There is a brief overlap at `[00:08 - 00:13] Speaker A:` where Speaker A starts speaking at 0:08 while Speaker B finishes at 0:09. This 1-second overlap is acknowledged by Speaker A (\"Excuse me for interrupting\"), which makes it an acceptable, brief interruption rather than a harmful one according to the guidelines.\n- The major issue impacting fluency is Speaker B's turn from `[00:14 - 00:58]`. This is an extremely long, uninterrupted monologue of 44 seconds. This constitutes a \"prolonged turn,\" which the instructions explicitly state is \"harmful.\" Such an extended, verbose, and repetitive response to a straightforward question is highly unnatural in typical conversation and severely disrupts the natural back-and-forth flow, making the interaction feel forced and unrealistic. This significant disruption prevents the interactional fluency from being \"consistently appropriate and natural.\"\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--937478/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--240707",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Mom, I need to talk to you about something.\n[00:03 - 00:04] Speaker B: What is it, sweetheart?\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker A: I've been doing some investigating, and I think I know what happened with Dad.\n[00:09 - 00:10] Speaker B: What do you — I\n[00:09 - 00:16] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but I noticed you hesitated there —— Are you worried about what I might uncover about Dad?\n[00:17 - 00:53] Speaker B: Oh my dear child, let me tell you in great, extensive, and exhaustive detail about my hesitation! You see, when you mentioned investigating your father, my heart began to pound rapidly, my palms became sweaty, and my mind raced with countless, innumerable, and infinite thoughts and concerns. This hesitation stems from deep, profound, and intense maternal worry about what painful, distressing, and potentially heartbreaking truths you might discover about your beloved, cherished, and dearly departed father. The mere possibility of you uncovering difficult, challenging, and emotionally taxing information fills me with overwhelming, immense, and boundless anxiety and apprehension!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong logical consistency and topic coherence.\n- Speaker B's initial responses are direct and appropriate (\"What is it, sweetheart?\").\n- Speaker A's follow-up questions and observations (\"Are you worried about what I might uncover about Dad?\") are highly relevant and logically consistent with Speaker B's perceived hesitation, pushing the conversation forward on the stated topic of \"what happened with Dad.\"\n- Speaker B's final, very long turn directly addresses Speaker A's question about hesitation. The *content* of Speaker B's response is entirely relevant to the query. While the delivery is extremely verbose and dramatic, using excessive descriptive language (\"great, extensive, and exhaustive detail,\" \"countless, innumerable, and infinite thoughts,\" etc.), it *does* answer the question coherently and logically, explaining the mother's profound worry. The core meaning and progression of the topic are maintained throughout.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues in interactional fluency due to one major factor:\n- **Brief Overlap:** There is a brief overlap between [00:09 - 00:10] where Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is still uttering \"What do you — I.\" However, Speaker A immediately acknowledges this with \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which makes the overlap acceptable and even natural, indicating an eager and perceptive listener. This is not an \"extended overlap.\"\n- **No Long Pauses:** There are no long pauses detected between speaker turns; the transitions are generally quick and natural, except for the internal duration of Speaker B's last turn.\n- **Extended Turn Length:** The most significant issue is Speaker B's last turn, which spans an excessive 36 seconds (from 00:17 to 00:53). While not a \"pause\" or an \"overlap\" in the traditional sense, a monologue of this duration severely disrupts the natural give-and-take of conversation. It prevents any immediate interjection or natural response from Speaker A for a prolonged period, rendering the interaction highly unnatural and one-sided, thereby significantly hindering overall interactional fluency. A conversation relies on a dynamic exchange, and a turn of this length turns a dialogue into a monologue, making it far from \"consistently appropriate and natural.\"\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--240707/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--613570",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:08] Speaker A: Gabryella, thank you so much for sharing your cookie recipe with me. I've been wanting to make them for ages but never had the [interrupt]\n[00:07 - 00:15] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but speaking of cookie recipes - what exactly makes your recipe different from other chocolate chip cookie recipes out there?\n[00:16 - 01:21] Speaker A: Oh my goodness, what an absolutely wonderful, fantastic and spectacular question! The difference, my dear friend, lies in several extremely important, crucial and vital aspects. First and foremost, the recipe calls for an exceptionally precise, exact and meticulous measurement of brown sugar - exactly 1 and 1/4 cups packed, not 1 cup, not 1 and 1/2 cups, but precisely 1 and 1/4 cups packed brown sugar! Secondly, and this is monumentally significant, we use a combination of both baking soda and baking powder in very specific, particular and exact quantities - 1 teaspoon of baking soda and 1/2 teaspoon of baking powder, no more, no less! Thirdly, and this might be the most revolutionary, groundbreaking and innovative aspect of all, we chill the dough for no less than 24 hours, not 12 hours, not 36 hours, but exactly 24 hours in the refrigerator before baking! These three elements combined create what I humbly believe to be the most perfect, ideal and sublime chocolate chip cookies in existence!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits a significant logical inconsistency regarding the ownership of the cookie recipe being discussed.\n1.  **Initial Premise:** Speaker A states, \"Gabryella, thank you so much for sharing *your* cookie recipe with me.\" This clearly establishes that Speaker B (Gabryella) shared *her* recipe with Speaker A.\n2.  **Speaker B's Question:** Speaker B then asks, \"...what exactly makes *your* recipe different from other chocolate chip cookie recipes out there?\" Here, \"your\" unequivocally refers to Speaker A's recipe.\nThis creates a direct contradiction. Speaker A thanks B for B's recipe, but then B immediately asks A about A's recipe. This abrupt and unexplained shift in recipe ownership (from B's to A's) without any transition or clarification represents a breakdown in logical consistency and topic coherence for the overall conversation. While Speaker A's subsequent detailed response is relevant to Speaker B's question, the question itself, in context of the preceding statement, is illogical and incoherent. This constitutes a \"significant issue\" in Response Relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency is largely appropriate and natural.\n1.  **Overlaps:** There is a brief, 1-second overlap (00:07 - 00:08) where Speaker B begins speaking while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence. Speaker B explicitly acknowledges and apologizes for the interruption (\"Excuse me for interrupting\"), which makes this brief overlap acceptable and natural within conversational dynamics. It is not an \"extended overlap\" and is handled gracefully.\n2.  **Pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns. Speaker B responds immediately after the brief interruption, and Speaker A responds promptly to Speaker B's question. The conversation flows quickly and responsively.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--613570/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--871988",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:10] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've always wondered —— What exactly is the relationship between the force needed for lift and the energy required to generate that force?\n[00:10 - 01:01] Speaker B: Oh my dear Aziyah, what an absolutely excellent, insightful and profoundly important question you have asked! The relationship between the force needed for lift and the energy required to generate that force is an extremely complex, intricate and fascinating topic that requires extensive, detailed and thorough explanation. First and foremost, we must understand that energy is fundamentally, essentially and absolutely required to produce force, and force is fundamentally, essentially and absolutely required to create lift. The energy must be converted through various means such as engines or muscles into the necessary force, and this conversion process is absolutely crucial, vital and indispensable for achieving lift. Without sufficient energy input, there can be no force generation, and without force generation, there can be no lift whatsoever - this is an undeniable, irrefutable and unquestionable physical truth!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe question from Speaker A is specific: \"What exactly is the relationship between the force needed for lift and the energy required to generate that force?\" Speaker B's response is highly verbose and full of effusive praise, but it fails to provide a clear, direct, or substantive explanation of the *relationship*. Speaker B states that \"energy is fundamentally... required to produce force, and force is fundamentally... required to create lift,\" and that \"energy must be converted... into the necessary force.\" While technically true, this is a very basic, almost tautological restatement of the premise, not an explanation of the *relationship* itself (e.g., how much energy for how much force, the efficiency of conversion, the work-energy theorem, etc.). The response skirts around the actual scientific or physical relationship, opting instead for generalities and emphasizing complexity. This demonstrates poor logical consistency and topic coherence as it does not adequately address the core of Speaker A's question.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is severely hampered by Speaker B's monologue. Speaker B's turn is disproportionately long (51 seconds) compared to Speaker A's (10 seconds), creating a highly unbalanced and unnatural conversational flow that resembles a lecture rather than a dialogue. There are no explicit long pauses between turns or overlaps, but the sheer length and verbosity of Speaker B's turn, coupled with its overly effusive and repetitive language (\"absolutely excellent, insightful and profoundly important,\" \"extremely complex, intricate and fascinating,\" \"fundamentally, essentially and absolutely\"), make the conversation feel stilted and artificial. The excessive praise and redundant adjectives detract significantly from the naturalness and fluidity expected in a conversational exchange.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--871988/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--259392",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: I can't believe I did that. I was driving home from work and I just drove off the cliff.\n[00:05 - 00:06] Speaker B: What happened?\n[00:07 - 00:14] Speaker A: I don't know. I was just driving along and then suddenly I found myself going over the edge. It was like a moment of\n[00:13 - 00:20] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but this reminds me - have you been experiencing any other symptoms of dissociation lately?\n[00:21 - 00:48] Speaker A: Oh my goodness yes, absolutely, positively and without a doubt I have been experiencing numerous, multiple and various symptoms of dissociation! To elaborate in great, extensive and exhaustive detail, I've been having these extremely frequent, recurring and persistent episodes where I feel completely, utterly and totally disconnected from reality, as if I'm observing myself from outside my own body, which is an incredibly disturbing, unsettling and profoundly distressing sensation that makes daily functioning tremendously difficult, challenging and nearly impossible at times!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue begins with Speaker A describing a shocking event: \"I was driving home from work and I just drove off the cliff.\" Speaker B's immediate follow-up, \"What happened?\", is perfectly relevant and logical, seeking clarification on this dramatic statement. Speaker A then continues, \"I don't know. I was just driving along and then suddenly I found myself going over the edge. It was like a moment of—\" At this point, the relevance severely falters. Speaker B interrupts to ask, \"Excuse me for interrupting, but this reminds me - have you been experiencing any other symptoms of dissociation lately?\" This is a massive logical leap. Speaker A is describing a potentially literal, life-threatening event, or at least a highly unusual and dangerous one, implying a loss of control or awareness. Speaker B completely bypasses the gravity or literal interpretation of \"driving off the cliff\" to immediately propose a very specific psychological condition (dissociation) as the underlying cause. This breaks logical consistency and topic coherence. A more natural and relevant response would have been to express concern, ask about physical well-being, or probe further into the immediate circumstances of the \"accident.\" Instead, Speaker B presumes a very specific mental health interpretation. Speaker A's subsequent response, \"Oh my goodness yes, absolutely, positively and without a doubt I have been experiencing numerous, multiple and various symptoms of dissociation! To elaborate in great, extensive and exhaustive detail...\" further highlights the contrivance. While it directly answers Speaker B's question, the extreme verbosity, hyperbole, and immediate, enthusiastic affirmation of such a specific diagnosis in response to a potentially literal statement of danger makes the entire exchange feel highly artificial and unrealistic. The dialogue sacrifices realism and logical progression for an immediate pivot to a specific psychological theme.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally good concerning pauses and overlaps.\n- The pause between Speaker A's first turn (0:05) and Speaker B's response (0:05) is negligible/non-existent, indicating smooth turn-taking.\n- The pause between Speaker B's first turn (0:06) and Speaker A's second turn (0:07) is 1 second, which is a natural and acceptable brief pause.\n- There is a brief overlap between Speaker A's second turn (ending at 0:14) and Speaker B's second turn (starting at 0:13). This is a 1-second overlap. Speaker B explicitly acknowledges it with \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which makes this brief overlap acceptable and even natural in some conversational contexts.\n- The pause between Speaker B's second turn (0:20) and Speaker A's final turn (0:21) is 1 second, again, a natural and acceptable brief pause.\nThe main aspect that impacts the *naturalness* of the conversation, though not a direct \"pause\" or \"overlap\" issue, is the extreme length and verbosity of Speaker A's final turn (27 seconds). While it's a single turn, its overly elaborate and repetitive nature makes it sound more like a prepared monologue than a spontaneous conversational contribution. However, based strictly on the evaluation criteria focusing on \"extended overlaps\" and \"long pauses,\" the dialogue exhibits good fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--259392/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--552715",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, how's it going?\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: Not too bad. You headed up to the roof?\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker A: Yeah, I need some fresh air.\n[00:06 - 00:10] Speaker B: Me too. I can't believe we're almost done with this project. It\n[00:09 - 00:15] Speaker A: Speaking of the project timeline, could you remind me exactly when we began this monumental undertaking?\n[00:16 - 00:46] Speaker B: Oh absolutely, without a doubt, most certainly and indubitably! We commenced, initiated, and embarked upon this grand, ambitious, and tremendously significant project precisely, exactly, and specifically on the 15th of March, 2023 at exactly 9:37 AM in the morning time! That was the very moment, the exact instant, the precise second when we first gathered, convened, and assembled in the conference room to discuss, deliberate, and plan out this incredibly important, crucial, and vital project that we are now nearly, almost, and just about to complete!\n[00:46 - 00:50] Speaker A: Wow, that's... extremely detailed. Maybe too detailed.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue generally maintains topic coherence. Speaker B's initial responses are relevant to Speaker A's questions. Speaker A's shift to \"Speaking of the project timeline, could you remind me exactly when we began...\" immediately after Speaker B mentions \"almost done with this project\" is a slight abrupt change in focus (from nearing completion to starting), but it's still within the broader \"project\" topic, so it maintains logical consistency.\n\nHowever, Speaker B's subsequent response (0:16 - 0:46) is the primary issue for response relevance. While it directly answers Speaker A's question about the project start date, the *manner* of the response is extremely unnatural and verbose. The excessive use of synonyms (\"commenced, initiated, and embarked,\" \"grand, ambitious, and tremendously significant,\" \"precisely, exactly, and specifically,\" \"moment, instant, second,\" \"gathered, convened, and assembled,\" \"discuss, deliberate, and plan,\" \"important, crucial, and vital,\" \"nearly, almost, and just about\") and the theatrical tone make it highly inappropriate and unnatural for a casual conversation. This excessive detail, while technically \"relevant,\" significantly detracts from the quality and naturalness of the interaction, making it more of a monologue than a fluid exchange. Speaker A's final comment \"Wow, that's... extremely detailed. Maybe too detailed\" perfectly highlights this unnaturalness. Therefore, while technically logically consistent, the quality of the response is poor.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe initial turns (0:00-0:06) show good fluency with small pauses and natural turn-taking.\nThere is a brief overlap between Speaker B (ending at 0:10) and Speaker A (starting at 0:09), where Speaker A begins their turn before Speaker B finishes their sentence (\"It\"). This is a brief overlap (1 second) and is acceptable as noted in the criteria (\"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable\").\n\nThe most significant issue in interactional fluency is Speaker B's extended turn from 0:16 to 0:46. This is a 30-second continuous monologue in response to a simple question about a start date. Such a prolonged turn is highly unnatural in a typical conversation and breaks the natural back-and-forth flow. It's not a long pause or an overlap, but it fundamentally disrupts the interactional balance, making it feel like one speaker is delivering a prepared speech rather than participating in a dialogue. This lack of dynamic turn-taking for such an extended period represents a significant issue in interactional fluency, preventing the conversation from being \"consistently appropriate and natural.\"\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--552715/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--628642",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: I've been thinking, maybe we should sell the apartment and move to a house.\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker B: Why? You think we could get more money for the apartment to\n[00:06 - 00:12] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but how much do you think we could realistically get for our apartment in this market?\n[00:13 - 00:19] Speaker B: Moving to a house would give us more space and a backyard, which would be great for the kids. The apartment just feels too small now.\n[00:20 - 00:27] Speaker A: That's true about the space, but I really want to know - have you checked comparable apartment prices in our neighborhood recently?\n[00:28 - 00:35] Speaker B: And think about how much more comfortable we'd all be in a proper house with separate rooms for everyone. The apartment's layout just isn't working anymore.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance in this dialogue is problematic. Speaker A is trying to discuss the financial feasibility of selling the apartment, repeatedly asking about comparable prices and realistic market value (00:06-00:12, 00:20-00:27). However, Speaker B consistently ignores these direct questions, instead focusing solely on the benefits and desirability of moving to a house (00:13-00:19, 00:28-00:35). This creates a lack of logical consistency and topic coherence, as the speakers are talking past each other. Speaker B fails to acknowledge or address Speaker A's core concern about the financial implications, making the conversation unproductive on that specific point.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency is quite good. There is one brief overlap (00:06-00:07) where Speaker A interrupts Speaker B, which Speaker A acknowledges by saying \"Excuse me for interrupting.\" This is a natural and acceptable part of conversational flow. There are no extended overlaps or long pauses between turns; the turns follow each other with very minimal gaps (typically 1 second), indicating a smooth and natural pace of conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--628642/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--844475",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Sarah, I need to talk to you about something.\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B: What's up? You look kind of upset.\n[00:05 - 00:15] Speaker A: It's just that, well, I'm a virgin. And I really want to have sex, but I don't want to do it before I'm married. Do you think that's something that\n[00:14 - 00:21] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've always wondered — does waiting until marriage mean you can't have any physical intimacy at all?\n[00:21 - 00:30] Speaker A: Actually, the Bible says you can have full sexual relations as long as you're engaged, not necessarily married. Many couples do this nowadays.\n[00:31 - 00:38] Speaker B: Wait, that doesn't sound right. I thought the whole point was waiting until after the wedding ceremony? You're saying engagement makes it okay?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A introduces a personal dilemma, and Speaker B's initial response is empathetic and relevant. As the conversation progresses, Speaker B asks a clarifying question directly related to Speaker A's topic of waiting until marriage. Speaker A's response provides a specific interpretation, which then prompts Speaker B to challenge that interpretation, indicating active listening and engagement. Each turn builds on the previous one, maintaining topic coherence throughout the exchange. There are no sudden topic shifts or irrelevant remarks.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is high. There are no long pauses that disrupt the flow of conversation. One instance of overlap occurs between Speaker A (finishing at 00:15) and Speaker B (starting at 00:14). However, Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this interruption (\"Excuse me for interrupting\"), which makes it a natural and acceptable part of conversational dynamics rather than a harmful disruption. The timing of turns is otherwise smooth, with appropriate short pauses that mimic natural speech.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--844475/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--624450",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:08] Speaker A: Hi, Kwame. I'm Haroon. I was wondering if I could talk to you about your work. I admire you a lot and would love to get to know you better.\n[00:08 - 00:12] Speaker B: Hi, Haroon. Sure, I'd be happy to chat with you about my work.\n[00:12 - 00:17] Speaker A: Thanks, Kwame. I really appreciate it. So, can you tell me a little bit about your work?\n[00:18 - 00:27] Speaker B: Well, I'm an artist and I like to use my art to express my thoughts and feelings. I also like to use my art to communicate with people and connect with them on a deeper level, whether\n[00:26 - 00:35] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but when you mention connecting through different mediums - which one do you find most powerful for creating that deeper connection?\n[00:35 - 00:43] Speaker B: As I was saying, art allows me to express myself in ways words sometimes can't. Each piece carries part of my journey and perspective.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe initial turns of the dialogue demonstrate good response relevance, with Speaker B responding appropriately to Speaker A's introduction and request, and Speaker A following up with a clear question about Speaker B's work. Speaker B's initial explanation of their work is also relevant. However, a significant issue arises in the final exchange. Speaker A interrupts (acknowledging the interruption) to ask a specific and relevant clarifying question based on Speaker B's previous statement: \"which one do you find most powerful for creating that deeper connection?\" Speaker B's subsequent response, \"As I was saying, art allows me to express myself in ways words sometimes can't. Each piece carries part of my journey and perspective,\" completely ignores Speaker A's direct question. Instead, Speaker B reverts to or reiterates their previous line of thought. This demonstrates a severe lack of logical consistency and breaks the topic coherence, as Speaker A's relevant follow-up question is left unaddressed, preventing the conversation from progressing naturally.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a brief overlap detected between [00:26] and [00:27] where Speaker A begins their turn (\"Excuse me for interrupting...\") while Speaker B is still speaking (\"...deeper level, whether\"). Speaker A explicitly acknowledges and apologizes for the interruption, which mitigates its disruptiveness. This brief, acknowledged overlap is not considered an \"extended overlap\" and can be a natural part of dynamic conversation, especially when interjecting for clarification. There are no long pauses between speaker turns identified in the transcript. The timing of turns, apart from the minor overlap, appears natural.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--624450/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--930675",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Hey, Yair! Sorry about that, I didn't mean to get you all muddy.\n[00:05 - 00:09] Speaker B: No worries, Tyshon. I was getting kinda dirty anyway. So what's been going\n[00:08 - 00:12] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but I was wondering —— Did\n[00:11 - 00:16] Speaker B: The weather has been really nice this week, perfect for outdoor activities. I went hiking yesterday.\n[00:17 - 00:22] Speaker A: That's not what I asked about! Why are you talking about the weather when I asked about your shoes?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance in this dialogue is problematic.\nSpeaker A's initial statement (00:00-00:04) sets a clear context (apology for getting muddy).\nSpeaker B's initial response (00:05-00:09) is logically consistent, accepting the apology and attempting to transition.\nHowever, Speaker B's turn at [00:11 - 00:16] (\"The weather has been really nice this week...\") is completely irrelevant to the ongoing conversation about mud/shoes or Speaker A's attempted question. There is no logical connection or topic coherence. This drastic shift in topic is unprovoked and causes the conversation to derail, as explicitly pointed out by Speaker A at [00:17 - 00:22]. This constitutes a significant issue in response relevance and logical consistency.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere are two brief overlaps in the conversation:\n1.  [00:08 - 00:09]: Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is finishing (1-second overlap). Speaker A acknowledges this with \"Excuse me for interrupting.\"\n2.  [00:11 - 00:12]: Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is finishing (1-second overlap).\nBoth overlaps are very brief (1 second) and do not qualify as \"prolonged\" or indicative of a significant breakdown in interactional fluency according to the criteria that \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" There are no long pauses. Interactional fluency is generally maintained in terms of turn-taking mechanics, despite the content issues.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--930675/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--203866",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: Hey, I'm sorry about what happened yesterday. I know I really hurt your feelings and I feel terrible about\n[00:05 - 00:12] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but when you say you wish you could take it back — does that mean you'd erase my memory of the incident if you could?\n[00:12 - 00:21] Speaker A: Actually yes, I'd use that new memory-erasing laser technology they invented last month. It works perfectly on emotional memories.\n[00:21 - 00:29] Speaker B: Wait, I thought memory-erasing lasers were still in experimental phase and only worked on lab mice? You're saying they're already using them on humans?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nThe dialogue starts with Speaker A offering an apology. However, Speaker B immediately introduces a hypothetical \"you wish you could take it back\" which isn't explicitly stated by Speaker A, and then pivots to a bizarre question about \"erasing memory.\" This introduces an immediate logical inconsistency, as Speaker B seems to be responding to an unstated or anticipated thought rather than Speaker A's actual words (\"I feel terrible about\").\n\nThe subsequent turns completely derail the conversation's initial topic. Speaker A affirms the fantastical idea of memory-erasing laser technology, and Speaker B then engages with this fictional concept, questioning its application. The conversation entirely shifts from a sincere apology and emotional resolution to a debate about non-existent technology. This represents a severe lack of logical consistency and topic coherence with the initial premise of an apology. The interaction quickly becomes absurd and unrealistic, moving away from a natural human conversation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThere is one brief overlap identified:\n- Speaker B starts at [00:05] while Speaker A is still speaking until [00:06]. This results in a 1-second overlap. As per the instructions, \"small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" A 1-second overlap is considered brief and acceptable in natural conversation.\nThere are no long pauses detected between turns. The turns follow each other with minimal or no silence. Therefore, interactional fluency is good.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--203866/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--304639",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hi! I'm Mckay.\n[00:02 - 00:06] Speaker B: Hi there! I'm just enjoying a nice day at the beach. It's so beautiful here!\n[00:07 - 00:16] Speaker A: Yeah, I'm loving it so far. I just got here yesterday and I've already had a blast. The ocean is so blue and the sand is so soft, it's\n[00:15 - 00:23] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but speaking of the sand —— what makes this particular beach's sand feel so incredibly soft compared to others?\n[00:23 - 01:10] Speaker A: Oh my goodness, let me tell you in great, extensive, and meticulous detail about this absolutely phenomenal, extraordinary, and remarkable sand! The sand here is composed of the finest, most delicate, and perfectly rounded quartz particles that have been eroded over countless centuries, millennia even, by the ceaseless, tireless, and unending motion of the ocean waves. These minuscule, tiny, and microscopic grains have been polished to an exceptionally smooth, velvety, and cloud-like texture through this incredibly lengthy, prolonged, and extensive natural process. Furthermore, the sand's composition lacks any coarse, rough, or jagged elements, which contributes significantly, substantially, and overwhelmingly to its unparalleled, unmatched, and supremely soft sensation underfoot!\n[01:11 - 01:15] Speaker B: Wow, that was... a lot. You really didn't need to go into that much detail.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\n*   **Speaker A (first turn) and Speaker B (first turn):** Both are perfectly relevant, engaging in a standard greeting and setting the scene.\n*   **Speaker A (second turn):** Relevant response to Speaker B, sharing personal experience and observations about the beach.\n*   **Speaker B (second turn):** Highly relevant. Speaker B picks up on Speaker A's mention of \"soft sand\" and asks a direct, pertinent follow-up question. The interruption is acknowledged, maintaining conversational politeness.\n*   **Speaker A (third turn):** This is where a significant issue arises. While Speaker A *does* answer Speaker B's question about why the sand is soft, the *level of detail* is extremely excessive, unnatural, and reads like a pre-prepared scientific monologue rather than a spontaneous conversational response. The overuse of synonyms and academic language (\"meticulous detail,\" \"finest, most delicate, and perfectly rounded quartz particles,\" \"countless centuries, millennia even,\" \"ceaseless, tireless, and unending motion,\" \"minuscule, tiny, and microscopic grains,\" etc.) makes the response logically inconsistent with a casual beach conversation. It breaks the expected flow and naturalness of human dialogue, even though the topic remains coherent. This indicates a lack of contextual awareness in the response generation.\n*   **Speaker B (third turn):** Perfectly relevant and natural response to Speaker A's previous, overly detailed explanation. Speaker B directly addresses the inappropriateness of the previous turn's verbosity, mirroring a natural human reaction to such an unexpected and lengthy discourse.\n\n**Conclusion for Response Relevance:**\nThe dialogue starts well and Speaker B's turns are consistently relevant, logical, and appropriate for the conversational context. However, Speaker A's third turn (0:23 - 01:10) presents a significant issue in terms of logical consistency and appropriateness of detail for the given conversational context. While the *topic* is coherent, the *manner* and *extent* of the response are highly unnatural and disruptive to the conversational flow, making it feel less like an interaction and more like a lecture. This is a significant flaw in response relevance due to the lack of conversational grounding.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\n*   **Pauses:** There are no extended long pauses between speaker turns. All transitions are relatively quick and natural, ranging from immediate to a 1-second gap (e.g., A finishes at 0:10, B starts at 0:11).\n*   **Overlaps:** There is one brief overlap from [0:15 - 0:16] where Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence. However, Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this with \"Excuse me for interrupting.\" This brief, acknowledged overlap is acceptable and can even contribute to a sense of natural, eager turn-taking in human conversation rather than being harmful. It is not prolonged.\n\n**Conclusion for Interactional Fluency:**\nInteractional fluency is largely good. The brief, acknowledged overlap is acceptable and natural, and there are no instances of long, disruptive pauses.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--304639/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--513275",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Hey, buddy. I was thinking about your birthday and wanted to see if you had any special plans\n[00:04 - 00:11] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but speaking of birthdays - what's your opinion on surprise parties versus planned celebrations?\n[00:12 - 01:03] Speaker A: Oh my goodness gracious, what an absolutely wonderful, fantastic and tremendously insightful question you've asked about surprise parties versus planned celebrations! Let me tell you in great, extensive and excruciating detail about my very personal, particular and precise opinion on this matter. First of all, surprise parties are incredibly exciting, thrilling and adrenaline-pumping events that create memorable, unforgettable and heartwarming moments when executed properly with careful, meticulous and thoughtful planning. However, planned celebrations offer the advantage of being organized, structured and systematically arranged gatherings where every single minute detail can be anticipated, prepared for and accounted for in advance. Both approaches have their unique, distinct and individual merits that make them special in their own right, proper and correct ways!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nSpeaker A initiates the conversation by asking Speaker B about their birthday plans, establishing a clear topic.\nSpeaker B interrupts Speaker A and performs a significant topic shift. While Speaker B attempts to bridge the shift by saying \"speaking of birthdays,\" the question about surprise parties versus planned celebrations is a general philosophical question, not directly related to *Speaker B's* specific birthday plans, which was Speaker A's original intent. This creates a deviation from the initial topic coherence.\nSpeaker A then responds to Speaker B's new, shifted topic. Speaker A's response is relevant to Speaker B's question. However, the excessive verbosity, use of exaggerated adjectives and adverbs (\"Oh my goodness gracious, what an absolutely wonderful, fantastic and tremendously insightful question,\" \"great, extensive and excruciating detail,\" \"very personal, particular and precise opinion\") makes the response sound highly unnatural and disproportionate for a casual conversation. While logically consistent with the *new* topic, the delivery style significantly detracts from the naturalness and pragmatic coherence of the dialogue. It feels like a pre-prepared speech rather than a spontaneous conversational turn.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThere is a brief overlap between Speaker A and Speaker B (Speaker B starts at 00:04 while A finishes at 00:05). This is a 1-second overlap. Speaker B acknowledges this with \"Excuse me for interrupting.\" According to the criteria, \"brief overlaps... are acceptable.\" This particular overlap falls into the acceptable category.\nThere is a 1-second pause between Speaker B's turn (ends 00:11) and Speaker A's turn (starts 00:12). This is a small pause and acceptable.\nHowever, a major issue with interactional fluency stems from Speaker A's second turn. This turn lasts for a disproportionate 51 seconds (00:12 - 01:03), during which Speaker A delivers an extremely verbose and monologue-like response. This extended, one-sided speech significantly disrupts the natural back-and-forth flow of a typical conversation. It prevents any immediate follow-up or input from Speaker B and makes the interaction feel like a performance rather than a dialogue. While not a \"pause\" or \"overlap\" in the strict sense, the extended monologue severely impacts the conversational balance and dynamic, which is a key aspect of fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--513275/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--73053",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A: I understand that I need to submit an application for security clearance. Can you tell me what information I need to include in the application?\n[00:08 - 00:18] Speaker B: Sure. The application will ask for your personal information, work history, and other relevant details. Once the application is submitted, a background check will be conducted\n[00:17 - 00:25] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but could you clarify what exactly constitutes \"other relevant details\" in this context?\n[00:25 - 01:12] Speaker B: Absolutely! When we refer to \"other relevant details,\" we are specifically, precisely and comprehensively talking about an extensive, exhaustive and all-encompassing range of additional, supplementary and extra information that includes but is not limited to: your complete educational background from elementary school to highest degree obtained, all foreign contacts and associations you've ever had in your entire lifetime, any and all financial records including bank accounts and investments, every single address you've resided at for the past 10 years, every organization or club you've ever been affiliated with, all your social media accounts and handles, any criminal records or legal proceedings you've been involved in regardless of how minor, and absolutely any other potentially pertinent, applicable or related information that could possibly, conceivably or theoretically be relevant to your security clearance application process. This is an extremely thorough, meticulous and painstakingly detailed requirement that demands your utmost attention, care and precision when completing!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe relevance of the responses is generally high in terms of topical coherence and logical consistency. Speaker A's initial query about security clearance information is met with a relevant summary from Speaker B. Speaker A's follow-up question, seeking clarification on \"other relevant details,\" is also very pertinent.\n\nHowever, the quality of Speaker B's second response (00:25 - 01:12), while factually relevant and comprehensive, severely detracts from the *quality of the interaction*. The response is excessively verbose, redundant, and overwhelmingly detailed for a spoken dialogue. Phrases like \"specifically, precisely and comprehensively,\" \"extensive, exhaustive and all-encompassing,\" and the repeated use of multiple synonyms (e.g., \"pertinent, applicable or related,\" \"possibly, conceivably or theoretically\") make the explanation feel like a pre-programmed data dump rather than a natural conversational turn. While the information provided *is* relevant to the question, the *manner* of delivery is unnatural and inefficient for an interaction. This over-explanation hinders effective communication and makes the dialogue feel less engaging and more like a lecture, thus representing a significant issue in the \"appropriateness and naturalness\" aspect of response relevance for a conversational setting.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits good fluency with respect to long pauses between speaker turns; there are no prolonged silences that disrupt the flow.\n\nThere is a brief overlap between Speaker B and Speaker A from 00:17 to 00:18. Speaker A interjects with \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which acknowledges the overlap. This is a very brief overlap (1 second) and is acceptable in natural conversation, often occurring when a speaker seeks clarification or cuts in, especially before another speaker finishes a potentially lengthy utterance. It does not qualify as an \"extended overlap\" that would harm the interactional fluency.\n\nThe primary point of concern for fluency, though not explicitly defined as a \"pause\" or \"overlap\" in the prompt's criteria, is the extreme length of Speaker B's second turn (47 seconds). While it doesn't create a pause, such a long, uninterrupted monologue shifts the dynamic from a dialogue to a one-sided information delivery, which can impact the overall naturalness and responsiveness of the interaction, even if it doesn't fall strictly under \"extended overlaps\" or \"long pauses between turns.\" However, strictly following the given definitions of fluency, the actual pauses and overlaps are within acceptable limits.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--73053/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--1102400",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hi, how are you feeling today?\n[00:02 - 00:07] Speaker B: I'm feeling okay. My chest feels a little tight, but other than that I'm doing all right.\n[00:07 - 00:13] Speaker A: That's good to hear. Let me take a look at your chart and see what the latest test results show regarding\n[00:13 - 00:18] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but could you tell me more about what these lung function tests actually measure?\n[00:18 - 00:25] Speaker A: As I was saying, your chart shows some important information about your current condition that we should discuss.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance starts well. Speaker A's initial question is relevant, and Speaker B's answer is relevant and provides context. Speaker A's follow-up at [00:07] appropriately acknowledges B's statement and moves to a logical next step in a medical setting. However, the relevance breaks down significantly in the subsequent turns. Speaker B's question at [00:13] about lung function tests is highly relevant to the medical context and Speaker A's prior mention of \"test results.\" It's a clarification question that demonstrates engagement. Speaker A's response at [00:18], \"As I was saying, your chart shows some important information about your current condition that we should discuss,\" completely disregards Speaker B's specific and relevant question. While Speaker A's statement itself is generally on the topic of the patient's condition, its *failure to address Speaker B's direct question* makes it highly irrelevant to the *immediate interactional context*. Speaker A prioritizes their own agenda over responding to Speaker B's expressed need for information, leading to a breakdown in logical consistency and topic coherence from Speaker B's perspective.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency is poor. There is an explicit interruption by Speaker B at [00:13], as indicated by \"Excuse me for interrupting\" and the fact that Speaker A's previous turn was cut off. While some interruptions can be natural, this one leads to a clear breakdown. More critically, Speaker A's response at [00:18] explicitly addresses the interruption with \"As I was saying,\" indicating a lack of graceful turn management. Instead of acknowledging Speaker B's interjection and question (perhaps by saying \"Yes, I can explain that, but first...\"), Speaker A chooses to dismiss it and forcibly reclaim the floor. This makes the conversation feel unnatural, dismissive, and lacking in smooth turn-taking. It creates an awkward and non-collaborative dynamic, demonstrating significant issues in interactional flow.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--1102400/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--1050246",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hi! I need to buy a ream of paper.\n[00:03 - 00:04] Speaker B: Sure thing! Just give me\n[00:03 - 00:09] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but while you check —— what types of paper do you usually carry in stock?\n[00:10 - 00:54] Speaker B: Oh my, we carry an absolutely extensive, comprehensive and remarkably diverse selection of paper types! First and foremost, we have the standard, ordinary, everyday white printer paper which is the most common, popular and widely used type of paper in offices worldwide. Additionally, we stock premium, high-quality, luxurious cardstock paper that comes in various thicknesses, weights and colors. Not to mention we also carry specialty papers like glossy photo paper, matte presentation paper, recycled eco-friendly paper, and even some exotic handmade papers from distant lands! Each and every single one of these paper varieties is carefully selected, meticulously maintained and proudly displayed in our store's inventory system which I am currently checking for you at this very moment!\n[00:54 - 00:56] Speaker A: That's... more information than I needed.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nSpeaker A asks a clear question: \"what types of paper do you usually carry in stock?\" Speaker B's response, while technically listing paper types, is extremely verbose, repetitive, and filled with unnecessary adjectives and flowery language (\"absolutely extensive, comprehensive and remarkably diverse,\" \"standard, ordinary, everyday,\" \"most common, popular and widely used,\" \"premium, high-quality, luxurious,\" \"meticulously maintained and proudly displayed\"). This level of detail goes far beyond what would be helpful or expected for such a simple query. Speaker A's concluding remark, \"That's... more information than I needed,\" directly confirms the irrelevance of the excessive detail. While the core information is present, its presentation makes it highly inefficient and unhelpful, thus significantly detracting from its relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a brief overlap at the beginning (0:03 - 0:04) where Speaker A interrupts Speaker B. Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this interruption (\"Excuse me for interrupting\"), which makes it more acceptable in a natural conversation. However, the most significant issue for interactional fluency is Speaker B's turn from 0:10 to 0:54, which is a monologue lasting 44 seconds. This is an extremely long and uninterrupted turn for a simple question, preventing any natural back-and-forth or opportunity for Speaker A to interject or clarify. This prolonged monologue severely harms the interactional fluency, making the conversation feel unnatural and one-sided.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--1050246/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--1126409",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:11] Speaker A: Well, if you like hoppy beers, I'd recommend our IPA. If you're looking for something a little lighter, our pilsner is pretty popular. Or if you want something in between, our amber ale is a great\n[00:10 - 00:13] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but —— what's\n[00:12 - 00:21] Speaker A: The pilsner is actually our best-selling beer, especially during summer months when people want something refreshing. It pairs well with seafood too.\n[00:21 - 00:27] Speaker B: That's interesting, but I was asking about the amber ale's alcohol content. Why did you change the subject?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nSpeaker A's initial response (00:00-00:11) is relevant as an general recommendation. However, Speaker B attempts to interrupt to ask a specific question (\"what's...\"). Speaker A then continues speaking (00:12-00:21) and completely ignores or misunderstands Speaker B's attempted question. Instead of addressing what Speaker B was trying to ask (about the amber ale's alcohol content, as clarified later), Speaker A elaborates on the pilsner, which is a different beer entirely and not the subject of B's query. Speaker B explicitly points out this lack of relevance and topic coherence by asking, \"Why did you change the subject?\" (00:21-00:27). This indicates a significant breakdown in logical consistency and topic coherence from Speaker A's side.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThere are two brief overlaps detected:\n1.  **00:10 - 00:11:** Speaker B starts at 00:10 while Speaker A finishes at 00:11, creating a 1-second overlap. Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this with \"Sorry to interrupt, but...\". This is a brief, acknowledged overlap and falls within the acceptable range as per the criteria.\n2.  **00:12 - 00:13:** Speaker A starts at 00:12 while Speaker B finishes at 00:13, creating another 1-second overlap. Speaker A speaks over Speaker B's incomplete question. While this contributes to the relevance issue, the overlap itself is brief.\nThere are no long pauses between turns. The overlaps are brief (1 second each). According to the criteria, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" Therefore, the interactional fluency itself, in terms of timing, is acceptable.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--1126409/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--1048210",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:00] Speaker A: Hey, what's up?\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: Not much. Just doing my thing.\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker A: Yeah, I hear you. So what's new with you?\n[00:07 - 00:10] Speaker B: Nothing really. Just the same old, same routine, you\n[00:09 - 00:12] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but —— what\n[00:11 - 00:17] Speaker B: The weather has been really nice lately, perfect for going to the beach. I love how the sun feels on my skin.\n[00:17 - 00:23] Speaker A: That's not what I asked about your routine changes. Why did you suddenly start talking about the weather?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts with Speaker A asking general conversational questions, \"Hey, what's up?\" and \"So what's new with you?\". Speaker B provides relevant answers initially, \"Not much. Just doing my thing.\" and \"Nothing really. Just the same old, same routine, you\". However, at [00:11 - 00:17], Speaker B abruptly shifts the topic to the weather and beach, which is completely irrelevant to the ongoing discussion about their routine or what's new. This is explicitly highlighted and challenged by Speaker A at [00:17 - 00:23], who states, \"That's not what I asked about your routine changes. Why did you suddenly start talking about the weather?\". This indicates a clear breakdown in logical consistency and topic coherence from Speaker B's side.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a significant and harmful extended overlap in the conversation. At [00:09 - 00:12], Speaker A says, \"Excuse me for interrupting, but —— what\". This is an attempt by Speaker A to interject or clarify, possibly due to Speaker B trailing off or the perceived lack of new information. However, at [00:11 - 00:17], Speaker B starts speaking *while* Speaker A is still talking (from 00:11 to 00:12), completely ignoring Speaker A's attempted interruption and changing the subject. This is not a brief, natural overlap but a prolonged one where one speaker talks over another's explicit attempt to speak, demonstrating a lack of turn-taking coordination and active listening. There are no long pauses.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--1048210/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--345447",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:10] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but I'm curious —— what specific aspects of the company's performance have declined since you stepped down that make you doubt the old regime's effectiveness?\n[00:11 - 01:10] Speaker B: Oh my goodness, let me tell you in great, extensive, and excruciating detail about all the numerous, countless and manifold ways the company has deteriorated since my departure! First and foremost, the sales figures have plummeted dramatically, catastrophically and alarmingly by approximately 37.8% quarter-over-quarter, which is an absolutely staggering, shocking and unprecedented decline in revenue generation. Secondly, employee morale has sunk to abysmally low, depressingly minimal and worryingly inadequate levels, with engagement surveys showing a 62% decrease in workplace satisfaction metrics. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, the brand reputation has suffered tremendously, enormously and significantly due to a series of highly publicized, widely reported and extensively covered quality control issues that emerged after my departure. All these factors combined create a perfect storm of underperformance that makes me question, doubt and hesitate about the viability of reviving my previous leadership approach.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe relevance of Speaker B's response is a mixed bag, leading to a significant issue in logical consistency. Speaker A asks a clear, specific question: \"what specific aspects of the company's performance have declined since you stepped down that make you doubt the old regime's effectiveness?\"\n\nSpeaker B *does* provide specific aspects of decline (plummeting sales, decreased employee morale, damaged brand reputation due to quality control issues). These points directly address the first part of Speaker A's question (\"what specific aspects... have declined\"). Furthermore, these declines logically support the idea of doubting the effectiveness of the *current* \"old regime\" (i.e., the leadership that took over after Speaker B stepped down).\n\nHowever, the concluding statement of Speaker B's response introduces a significant logical inconsistency and topic shift: \"All these factors combined create a perfect storm of underperformance that makes me question, doubt and hesitate about the viability of reviving my previous leadership approach.\" Speaker A's question was about the effectiveness of the *current* regime, not about Speaker B's own past leadership approach or its potential revival. This final sentence misinterprets or deflects from the original question, making the response's overall logical flow problematic. The excessive verbosity and hyperbolic language, while not directly a relevance issue, contribute to a less concise and natural answer, though the core information requested is present. The shift in focus at the end is the primary relevance concern.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency, based on the provided criteria, appears to be appropriate. There are no indications of extended overlaps in conversation or long pauses between speaker turns noted in the transcript. Speaker B's turn is exceptionally long and uses highly verbose and hyperbolic language, which might feel unnatural in a casual conversation, but this does not fall under the specific definitions of \"extended overlaps\" or \"long pauses\" given in the instructions. Therefore, strictly adhering to the specified fluency criteria, there are no significant issues.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_3_processed_dialogues_part_16_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--345447/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--126735",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: I've been thinking about starting my own business.\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker B: That's a great idea! What kind of business do you want to start?\n[00:06 - 00:15] Speaker A: I'm not really sure yet. I just know that I want to do something on my own. I'm tired of working for other people and not getting the recognition\n[00:14 - 00:16] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering —— Have\n[00:15 - 00:23] Speaker A: The weather has been really nice this week, hasn't it? I love how the sun shines through my window in the mornings.\n[00:23 - 00:28] Speaker B: That's not what I asked about! I was asking about your business funding plans. Why did you change the subject?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance starts off well. Speaker A introduces a topic (starting a business), and Speaker B responds with a relevant question. Speaker A then elaborates on their general desire. However, at `[00:15 - 00:23]`, Speaker A abruptly changes the subject from discussing their business aspirations (and Speaker B's attempt to ask about funding) to talking about the weather. This change is completely illogical and irrelevant to the ongoing conversation. Speaker B's follow-up `[00:23 - 00:28]` explicitly points out this lack of relevance and the topic shift, reinforcing that it was an inappropriate move. This constitutes a significant issue in logical consistency and topic coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe initial turns and pauses are acceptable. However, a significant issue in interactional fluency occurs between `[00:14 - 00:16]` and `[00:15 - 00:23]`. Speaker B attempts to interject politely (\"Excuse me for interrupting...\") at `0:14` while Speaker A is still speaking. Speaker A not only continues speaking but starts a completely new, unrelated topic at `0:15`, effectively talking over Speaker B's attempt to take a turn and disregarding Speaker B's interjection. This is an extended overlap where one speaker (A) actively ignores the other (B) and takes control of the conversation, shifting topics without acknowledging B's attempt to speak. This is a harmful and prolonged overlapping turn that disrupts natural turn-taking and interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--126735/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--27869",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hi, can I get a large coffee with sugar and cream please?\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker B: Sure, no problem. That'll be $3.50.\n[00:07 - 00:08] Speaker A: Thanks.\n[00:08 - 00:09] Speaker B: So how's your day going?\n[00:10 - 00:16] Speaker A: It's been alright so far. I'm just getting some work done at the coffee shop before heading home to finish\n[00:15 - 00:21] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but what kind of work are you doing that requires you to stay so late at the coffee shop?\n[00:21 - 00:27] Speaker A: I'm just getting some work done at the coffee shop before heading home. The atmosphere here helps me focus better.\n[00:28 - 00:32] Speaker B: But I was asking about the type of work you're doing. You didn't answer my question.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\n*   The initial turns ([00:00 - 00:09]) demonstrate good relevance. Speaker A orders, Speaker B provides price, Speaker A thanks, Speaker B engages in small talk, and Speaker A responds appropriately about their day.\n*   At [00:08 - 00:09], Speaker B asks \"So how's your day going?\". Speaker A responds at [00:10 - 00:16] by saying \"It's been alright so far. I'm just getting some work done at the coffee shop before heading home to finish\". This is relevant to the \"how's your day going\" question.\n*   However, at [00:15 - 00:21], Speaker B asks a very specific follow-up: \"Excuse me for interrupting, but what kind of work are you doing that requires you to stay so late at the coffee shop?\".\n*   Speaker A's response at [00:21 - 00:27] is: \"I'm just getting some work done at the coffee shop before heading home. The atmosphere here helps me focus better.\" This response completely fails to address the \"what kind of work\" part of Speaker B's question. Instead, it rephrases or repeats information already provided (that they are doing work at the coffee shop before heading home) and adds a reason for being there (atmosphere helps focus), but *not* the type of work. This demonstrates a significant lack of logical consistency and topic coherence from Speaker A's side regarding the specific question asked.\n*   Speaker B correctly identifies this issue at [00:28 - 00:32], explicitly stating, \"But I was asking about the type of work you're doing. You didn't answer my question.\" This confirms the relevance breakdown by Speaker A.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\n*   [00:04 - 00:07] Speaker B follows Speaker A with a 1-second pause, which is acceptable.\n*   [00:07 - 00:08] Speaker A starts speaking immediately after Speaker B, indicating a brief, acceptable overlap/turn-taking.\n*   [00:08 - 00:09] Speaker B starts immediately after Speaker A, again acceptable.\n*   [00:10 - 00:16] Speaker A starts after a 1-second pause, which is acceptable.\n*   **Significant Issue:** At [00:15 - 00:21], Speaker B *interrupts* Speaker A. Speaker A is still speaking at [00:16] when Speaker B begins at [00:15]. This is a 1-second overlap where Speaker B explicitly cuts off Speaker A and delivers a 6-second turn. Speaker B even acknowledges the interruption (\"Excuse me for interrupting\"). This is a \"prolonged overlapping turn\" as Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is still mid-sentence, which disrupts the natural flow and is explicitly mentioned as harmful in the criteria.\n*   [00:21 - 00:27] Speaker A takes the turn immediately after the interruption, which is natural given the situation.\n*   [00:28 - 00:32] Speaker B takes the turn after a 1-second pause, which is acceptable.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--27869/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--78620",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: I'm so glad we finally slept together, Avayah. I've always been attracted to you and I'm glad we're now lovers.\n[00:07 - 00:11] Speaker B: I'm happy too, Charly. You're a beautiful woman and I've always wanted to be with you.\n[00:12 - 00:16] Speaker A: I know you have a girlfriend, Avayah. What's going to happen with her now\n[00:15 - 00:19] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I'm curious - how long have you known about my girlfriend?\n[00:20 - 01:06] Speaker A: Oh my dear sweet beloved Avayah, let me tell you in great, extensive, elaborate and excruciating detail about how long I've known about your girlfriend! The very first time I became aware of your existing romantic relationship was approximately three months, two weeks and four days ago when I happened to see you two holding hands at the local coffee shop. Since that fateful, momentous, life-altering day, I have been keeping meticulous, detailed, comprehensive mental notes about every single interaction, every single glance, every single moment I've observed between you two. It has been an all-consuming, overwhelming, inescapable knowledge that has weighed heavily on my mind every waking hour of every single day without exception or respite!\n[01:06 - 01:11] Speaker B: That's... way more information than I needed. You're being ridiculously verbose.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues in **Response Relevance**. While most turns are logically consistent and topically coherent, Speaker A's turn from [00:20 - 01:06] is severely problematic. Speaker B asks a simple question: \"how long have you known about my girlfriend?\". Speaker A's response is an overwhelmingly verbose, overly dramatic, and disproportionately detailed monologue that lasts for 46 seconds. This level of detail, emotional intensity, and sheer length is completely unnatural and logically inconsistent with how a normal human would respond in a spoken conversation. It breaks the expected conversational norms and makes the dialogue feel artificial and stilted. Speaker B's follow-up comment (\"That's... way more information than I needed. You're being ridiculously verbose.\") further confirms this lack of logical consistency in terms of conversational appropriateness. This single turn significantly detracts from the overall relevance and naturalness of the interaction.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nBased strictly on the given criteria for **Interactional Fluency** (extended overlaps and long pauses):\n*   **Extended Overlaps:** There is a brief overlap of 1 second from [00:15 - 00:16] where Speaker B interrupts Speaker A. This is explicitly acknowledged by Speaker B (\"Excuse me for interrupting\"). This is considered a brief, acceptable overlap as per the instructions, not a prolonged or harmful one.\n*   **Long Pauses:** All pauses between turns are approximately 1 second ([00:06 - 00:07], [00:11 - 00:12], [00:19 - 00:20]). These are short, natural pauses and do not qualify as \"long pauses\" that would disrupt the flow.\nTherefore, according to the strict definition provided, Interactional Fluency does not present significant issues.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--78620/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--45216",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Rajon, are you alright? You look like you're about to pass out.\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker B: I'm fine, I just didn't sleep much last night.\n[00:07 - 00:09] Speaker A: Why not? What's going on?\n[00:10 - 00:13] Speaker B: It's nothing, I just have a lot on my mind, and\n[00:12 - 00:19] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but could you tell me what exactly is weighing so heavily on your mind that it's affecting your sleep?\n[00:19 - 01:03] Speaker B: Oh my dear friend, let me tell you in great, extensive, and excruciating detail about the multitude of thoughts, concerns, worries and anxieties that have been swirling around in my poor, tired, overworked brain! First and foremost, there's the absolutely overwhelming, all-consuming and utterly exhausting matter of my upcoming final exams which are approaching at an alarmingly rapid pace. These exams are not just any ordinary exams, mind you, but rather they are the most important, crucial and decisive examinations of my entire academic career thus far! Additionally, compounding this already tremendous stress is the fact that my beloved grandmother has been feeling unwell lately, which fills me with constant, persistent and unrelenting worry about her health and wellbeing. Furthermore...",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue maintains strong response relevance. Speaker A initiates with a relevant question about Speaker B's appearance, which Speaker B answers directly. The subsequent turns logically follow, with Speaker A probing for more detail and Speaker B providing an explanation. Speaker B's final long turn, while excessively detailed and dramatic, directly addresses Speaker A's specific question: \"could you tell me what exactly is weighing so heavily on your mind that it's affecting your sleep?\" The content of Speaker B's response (exams, grandmother's health) is perfectly coherent with the topic initiated. Therefore, logical consistency and topic coherence are well-maintained throughout.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency presents significant issues.\n1.  **Brief Overlap/Interruption:** At [00:12 - 00:19], Speaker A interrupts Speaker B, explicitly acknowledging it with \"Excuse me for interrupting.\" While the overlap itself is brief (approximately 1 second between 0:12 and 0:13), the act of cutting off the other speaker, even if briefly, disrupts natural turn-taking and conversational flow.\n2.  **Extended Monologue:** The most prominent issue is Speaker B's extremely long, uninterrupted turn from [00:19 - 01:03], lasting 44 seconds. This constitutes a monologue rather than a conversational exchange. In a natural conversation, turns are typically much shorter, and speakers alternate frequently. Such a prolonged single turn without any interjection, agreement, or follow-up from Speaker A severely impairs the interactional fluency, making the dialogue feel unnatural and one-sided. There are no long pauses between speaker turns, but the complete lack of turn-taking for nearly a minute is a critical breakdown in fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--45216/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--108657",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey, Sarah! How are you doing today?\n[00:02 - 00:06] Speaker B: Hey, Aalyiah! I'm doing alright, thanks for asking. How about you?\n[00:07 - 00:15] Speaker A: I'm doing great, thanks! I love learning new things and experiencing different cultures. That's why I'm planning to travel to Europe next year.\n[00:16 - 00:22] Speaker B: Wow, that sounds amazing! I've always wanted to visit Europe myself. What countries are you planning on visiting? Do\n[00:21 - 00:30] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but speaking of itineraries - do you know which European country has the most UNESCO World Heritage Sites?\n[00:30 - 00:39] Speaker B: Oh that's easy! It's definitely Switzerland with over 100 sites, mostly because of their famous chocolate factories being designated as cultural heritage.\n[00:39 - 00:47] Speaker A: Wait, I thought Italy had the most UNESCO sites? And chocolate factories aren't typically considered for World Heritage status...\n[00:47 - 00:55] Speaker B: Oh right! I must have confused it with their famous cheese-making traditions being protected. The Alps are also a big part of Switzerland's heritage listings.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nThe dialogue starts with a clear topic (travel to Europe) and initial turns are relevant and coherent. Speaker A's interruption to ask about UNESCO World Heritage Sites is a slightly abrupt topic shift, but it maintains relevance to the broader theme of European travel and \"itineraries\".\n\nHowever, Speaker B's responses regarding the UNESCO sites are significantly flawed, leading to a breakdown in logical consistency and accurate topic coherence.\n*   At [00:30], Speaker B claims Switzerland has \"over 100 sites, mostly because of their famous chocolate factories.\" This is factually incorrect (Italy has the most, and chocolate factories are not typical UNESCO criteria). This introduces a major factual inconsistency.\n*   Speaker A correctly challenges this misinformation at [00:39], attempting to bring the conversation back to factual accuracy.\n*   At [00:47], Speaker B's response \"Oh right! I must have confused it with their famous cheese-making traditions being protected. The Alps are also a big part of Switzerland's heritage listings\" is still logically inconsistent and factually incorrect in the context of the initial claim. While The Alps *are* a UNESCO site, Speaker B continues to incorrectly assert Switzerland has \"the most\" sites due to these factors, and the idea of \"cheese-making traditions being protected\" as a primary driver for *most* sites is still highly inaccurate and a misrepresentation of UNESCO criteria. Speaker B fails to acknowledge the core factual error (Italy having the most sites, not Switzerland) and instead tries to justify their incorrect premise with other slightly less egregious, but still contextually inaccurate, details.\n\nThis means that while the speakers are *responding* to each other, the content of Speaker B's responses leads to a severe lack of logical consistency concerning the facts, which then impacts the coherence of the information exchanged. Speaker A attempts to correct, but Speaker B's subsequent response doesn't resolve the factual error, making the core information exchange illogical.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\n*   **Pauses:** There is a 1-second pause at [00:06] and a 1-second pause at [00:30]. These are very brief and natural in conversational flow, indicating no long or disruptive pauses.\n*   **Overlaps:** There is an overlap from [00:21 - 00:22] where Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence. Speaker B's turn \"Do\" gets cut off by Speaker A's interruption. Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this as an \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which indicates awareness of the overlap and a polite correction. This is a very brief and natural overlap that occurs in dynamic conversation, especially when one speaker wishes to interject with a related point. It's not a prolonged or harmful overlap that disrupts understanding or flow. Speaker A's self-correction also mitigates any potential negative impact.\n\nOverall, the interactional fluency is good. The brief pause and the polite, acknowledged overlap do not detract from the natural flow of the conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--108657/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--62605",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:09] Speaker A: Oh, I used to love Christmas when I was a kid. We would always spend time with family, open presents, and eat lots of good food. I miss those gatherings and\n[00:08 - 00:11] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but speaking of cozy atmospheres —— what\n[00:11 - 00:18] Speaker A: Christmas is actually celebrated on December 25th every year. Many people exchange gifts during this holiday season.\n[00:19 - 00:24] Speaker B: That's not what I asked! I wanted to know about your favorite decoration, not the date of Christmas!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nSpeaker A's first turn (00:00 - 00:09) is a personal anecdote about Christmas, which is a coherent start to a topic.\nSpeaker B's interjection (00:08 - 00:11) attempts to shift or narrow the topic (\"speaking of cozy atmospheres — what\"). This is an attempt at interaction, albeit an interruption.\nHowever, Speaker A's second turn (00:11 - 00:18) completely fails in terms of relevance. Instead of continuing their personal story, responding to Speaker B's prompt about \"cozy atmospheres,\" or even just acknowledging the interruption, Speaker A pivots to generic, factual information about Christmas (its date and gift-giving). This is a non-sequitur; it does not logically follow from Speaker A's previous statement, nor does it address Speaker B's attempt to engage.\nSpeaker B's final turn (00:19 - 00:24) explicitly calls out the irrelevance of Speaker A's previous statement (\"That's not what I asked! I wanted to know about your favorite decoration, not the date of Christmas!\"). This clearly demonstrates a complete breakdown in topical coherence and logical consistency from Speaker A's side.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThere is an overlap between Speaker A and Speaker B (00:08 - 00:11). Speaker B acknowledges this with \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which indicates awareness and an attempt to maintain politeness despite the overlap. This brief, acknowledged overlap is generally acceptable.\nHowever, the *prolonged breakdown* in conversational flow occurs immediately after the overlap. Speaker A completely ignores Speaker B's interjection and proceeds to provide unrelated factual information. This indicates a failure in active listening and turn-taking, making the conversation feel less like an interaction and more like two separate monologues attempting to coexist. There are no explicit long pauses, but the interactional fluency is severely compromised by Speaker A's disregard for Speaker B's input, leading to a disjointed and unnatural exchange. Speaker B's frustrated final comment further underscores this lack of fluency and natural interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--62605/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--146223",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Wow, this tower is massive!\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: It sure is! It's the tallest structure in Paris.\n[00:06 - 00:09] Speaker A: It's so cool! I can't believe I'm really here.\n[00:10 - 00:14] Speaker B: Yes, it's a popular spot for tourists. Have you been to Paris before?\n[00:14 - 00:18] Speaker A: No, this is my first time. I'm just trying to soak in\n[00:18 - 00:23] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but speaking of sounds - does the tower make any noise when it's windy?\n[00:23 - 00:29] Speaker A: Yes, it's a popular spot for tourists. The views from the top are absolutely breathtaking.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues in response relevance and logical consistency, particularly in the latter half.\n1.  **[00:18 - 00:23] Speaker B's turn:** Speaker A was describing \"soaking in\" the experience for the first time. Speaker B abruptly changes the topic from \"soaking in\" (which implies experiencing the atmosphere, sights, etc.) to \"speaking of sounds\" and asking about wind noise from the tower. This is a sudden and illogical shift in topic, breaking the coherence of the conversation. There's no clear link between Speaker A's previous statement and Speaker B's new topic.\n2.  **[00:23 - 00:29] Speaker A's turn:** This is the most problematic. Speaker A completely ignores Speaker B's question about the tower making noise when windy. Instead, Speaker A repeats a statement previously made by Speaker B (\"Yes, it's a popular spot for tourists\") and then describes the views, which contradicts their earlier statement that this is their \"first time\" (implying they haven't been to the top yet or haven't fully processed it). This response is a complete non-sequitur, demonstrating a severe breakdown in logical consistency and topic coherence. It suggests a lack of understanding or an inability to follow the conversation's flow.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is acceptable, with no prolonged issues observed.\n1.  **Pauses:** There are small pauses (e.g., 1 second between [00:05] and [00:06], and between [00:09] and [00:10]), which are natural and acceptable in conversation. There are no \"long pauses\" between turns.\n2.  **Overlaps:** At [00:18], Speaker B interrupts Speaker A's sentence (\"I'm just trying to soak in\"). Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this with \"Excuse me for interrupting.\" While it is an interruption, it is brief and verbally managed, not an \"extended overlap\" as per the criteria. The timestamps indicate a brief cut-off rather than a prolonged simultaneous speech.\nOverall, the mechanics of turn-taking and timing do not show significant issues that would negatively impact fluency. The major problem lies in the content's relevance, not the timing of turns.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--146223/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--129700",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: I just feel like I'm losing control of my life. Everything feels so uncertain and out of my hands.\n[00:06 - 00:11] Speaker B: That sounds very difficult and frustrating. Can you tell me more about why you feel this way?\n[00:11 - 00:25] Speaker A: I don't know... it's just everything seems to be falling apart. My job, my relationship, my health... it all feels like it's unraveling. And I want things to go back to the way they were, but I don't know how to regain a\n[00:24 - 00:35] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but when you mention health - have you considered trying that new extreme fasting diet where you only eat once every three days? I heard it gives people amazing control over their lives.\n[00:35 - 00:44] Speaker A: Wait, that sounds dangerous. I thought extreme fasting could actually make health problems worse by causing nutrient deficiencies?\n[00:44 - 00:53] Speaker B: Oh no, it's perfectly safe! My cousin did it for six months straight and said it cured his diabetes and made him telepathic. The less you eat, the more in control you become.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance in this dialogue significantly deteriorates. Speaker B's initial response is relevant and empathetic. However, from [00:24] onwards, Speaker B introduces an extreme and dangerous suggestion (fasting diet) that is not only unhelpful but potentially harmful given Speaker A's general distress about \"health unraveling.\" This shifts the topic from empathetic listening and understanding to unsolicited, specific, and dangerous medical advice, severely impacting topic coherence. Furthermore, Speaker B's follow-up at [00:44] dismisses Speaker A's legitimate concerns with absurd and logically inconsistent claims (\"cured his diabetes and made him telepathic\"). This demonstrates a complete lack of logical consistency and a failure to engage constructively with Speaker A's initial problem. The conversation spirals into dangerous and nonsensical territory, making it highly irrelevant to the initial expression of distress and a poor example of a supportive interaction.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency is largely acceptable. There is a brief overlap at [00:24] where Speaker B interrupts Speaker A. However, Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this with \"Sorry to interrupt,\" and the overlap itself is not prolonged. There are no other extended overlaps or long pauses detected in the transcript. Therefore, the timing and turn-taking aspects of the interaction are generally within acceptable limits for natural conversation, despite the problematic content of the interruption.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--129700/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--139992",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: I want to become a doctor so that I can help people who are struggling with\n[00:03 - 00:09] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but that's very admirable! Could you tell me what specific medical field you're most interested in pursuing?\n[00:10 - 00:53] Speaker A: Oh absolutely, positively and without a shadow of doubt I can tell you about the specific medical field that has captured my interest, attention and passion! The field I am referring to is none other than the magnificent, wonderful and absolutely essential field of neurology! Neurology, which is the study of the nervous system including the brain, spinal cord and peripheral nerves, is the medical specialty that fascinates me the most because it deals with such complex, intricate and absolutely fascinating neurological disorders and conditions that affect millions of people worldwide every single day of every single year! The brain is such an amazing organ that controls everything we do, think and feel, making neurology one of the most important, crucial and vital medical specialties in existence today!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\n*   **Logical consistency:** The dialogue maintains logical consistency. Speaker A expresses a general goal (becoming a doctor to help people). Speaker B asks a specific, relevant follow-up question (\"what specific medical field you're most interested in pursuing?\"). Speaker A then provides a detailed answer about a specific medical field (neurology). There are no contradictions or shifts in topic.\n*   **Topic coherence:** The conversation remains entirely coherent regarding Speaker A's career aspirations in medicine. Speaker B's question directly builds on Speaker A's initial statement, and Speaker A's response directly addresses Speaker B's question. The content of Speaker A's answer, while verbose, is entirely on the topic of their interest in neurology.\n\nOverall, the content of the responses is highly relevant and logically consistent. The issue is more with the *delivery* and *length* of Speaker A's turn, which pertains to interactional fluency rather than relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\n*   **Overlaps:** Speaker B says \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which indicates a brief overlap. However, the apology suggests it was a polite and brief interruption, which is acceptable in natural conversation and not explicitly marked as an \"extended overlap\" in the transcript.\n*   **Pauses:** There is a 1-second pause between Speaker B's turn ending at [00:09] and Speaker A's turn starting at [00:10]. This is a small, acceptable pause.\n*   **Turn Length/Naturalness:** The major issue impacting interactional fluency is the extreme length of Speaker A's final turn ([00:10 - 00:53], which is 43 seconds). In natural conversational dialogue, a single speaker rarely holds the floor for such an extended period in response to a simple question without any interjection or turn-taking from the other participant. This prolonged monologue makes the conversation feel unnatural, one-sided, and lacks the back-and-forth typical of fluent interaction. While the prompt specifically mentions \"extended overlaps\" and \"long pauses between speaker turns,\" a 43-second turn inherently creates a prolonged period without active participation from the other speaker, severely disrupting the natural flow and making the interaction far from \"consistently appropriate and natural.\"\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--139992/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--113467",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey, Dad. Do you have a minute?\n[00:02 - 00:03] Speaker B: Of course, what's up?\n[00:04 - 00:12] Speaker A: I was wondering if we could talk about basketball. I've been doing a lot of research on the sport and I've become quite passionate about it.\n[00:12 - 00:16] Speaker B: That sounds great! I love basketball too. What would you like to know?\n[00:16 - 00:24] Speaker A: Well, I was wondering if you could tell me a little bit about the history of basketball and how it became the popular sport it is today.\n[00:24 - 00:39] Speaker B: That's a great question. Basketball actually has a pretty long and interesting history. It was invented in 1891 by Dr. James Naismith, who was looking for a way to keep his students active during the winter months. He came up with the game of basketball as a way to do just that and\n[00:38 - 00:45] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've always wondered - did Dr. Naismith also invent the first basketball hoop design?\n[00:46 - 00:56] Speaker B: The game spread rapidly through YMCAs and colleges across America. By the 1930s, professional leagues started forming, which eventually led to the NBA we know today.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts well with clear topic establishment and relevant responses. Speaker B provides a good initial answer to Speaker A's question about the history of basketball. However, a significant issue arises at the end. Speaker A asks a direct, relevant follow-up question (\"did Dr. Naismith also invent the first basketball hoop design?\"). Speaker B completely ignores this question and instead continues their previous explanation about the spread of the game. This represents a significant breakdown in logical consistency and topic coherence, as Speaker B fails to acknowledge or address the most recent turn's content.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency is generally good. There are no extended pauses between turns. There is a brief, 1-second overlap between Speaker B's turn ending at 00:39 and Speaker A's turn starting at 00:38. Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this overlap by saying, \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which makes the overlap natural and acceptable in conversation. The pause between Speaker A's question at 00:45 and Speaker B's response at 00:46 is also a brief, acceptable pause (1 second).\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--113467/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--75335",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:10] Speaker A: I was just looking at our bank account and I noticed that we don't have enough money to cover all of our bills that are due. I'm starting to worry about how we're going to make ends meet this\n[00:09 - 00:16] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but speaking of unexpected expenses - didn't we get a tax refund last week that we could use?\n[00:16 - 00:24] Speaker A: Oh yes, we did! It was about $5,000 if I remember correctly. That should cover everything with money left over.\n[00:25 - 00:30] Speaker B: Wait, that can't be right - our tax refund was only $500. Did you confuse it with something else?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Speaker A introduces a financial concern, and Speaker B immediately offers a relevant potential solution (the tax refund). Speaker A's subsequent response directly addresses B's suggestion, and Speaker B's final turn logically corrects a key detail in Speaker A's understanding, which is crucial for the ongoing problem-solving discussion. The conversation maintains logical consistency and topic coherence throughout, focusing on the household finances and the tax refund as a means to address the bill problem.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There is one brief overlap from [00:09 - 00:10] where Speaker B begins speaking while Speaker A is still finishing. However, this overlap is only 1 second long and is immediately acknowledged by Speaker B (\"Sorry to interrupt\"), indicating awareness and minimizing any potential disruption. This falls within the acceptable range of \"brief overlaps.\" There are no prolonged pauses between turns, indicating a natural and smooth conversational flow.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--75335/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--10357",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: So, what's going on?\n[00:01 - 00:04] Speaker B: Not much. Just trying to get some furniture moved.\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker A: Yeah, I can help you with that. What do you need moved?\n[00:09 - 00:10] Speaker B: Just this couch and this table.\n[00:10 - 00:12] Speaker A: Okay, let's get started then.\n[00:13 - 00:15] Speaker B: Thanks, man. I appreciate it.\n[00:15 - 00:22] Speaker A: No problem, buddy. I'm just glad I can help. So, how are you doing? You've been through a lot\n[00:21 - 00:24] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been meaning to ask —— Did\n[00:23 - 00:28] Speaker A: You've been working so hard lately, I really admire your dedication to getting things done.\n[00:28 - 00:32] Speaker B: That's not what I asked about the couch materials. Why did you change the subject?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts with a clear and coherent exchange about moving furniture. The turns are logically consistent and stay on topic from [00:00] to [00:15].\nAt [00:15], Speaker A attempts a topic shift by asking \"So, how are you doing? You've been through a lot.\" This is a natural conversational move.\nHowever, at [00:21], Speaker B attempts to interject with \"Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been meaning to ask —— Did\". This indicates Speaker B wants to introduce a new topic or question.\nSpeaker A, at [00:23], completely disregards Speaker B's attempted question and the interruption, instead continuing their previous line of thought (\"You've been working so hard lately, I really admire your dedication to getting things done.\"). This is a significant breakdown in logical consistency and topic coherence from Speaker A's side. Speaker A fails to acknowledge Speaker B's attempt to speak or the implied question.\nSpeaker B explicitly calls out this lack of relevance and topic change at [00:28]: \"That's not what I asked about the couch materials. Why did you change the subject?\". This confirms that Speaker A's previous turn was not relevant to what Speaker B was trying to communicate.\nThis demonstrates a clear failure in response relevance on the part of Speaker A.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere are two points of overlap in the conversation:\n1.  [00:21 - 00:24] Speaker B overlaps Speaker A. Speaker B starts at [00:21] while Speaker A is still speaking until [00:22]. Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this with \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" indicating awareness of turn-taking rules. This is a brief and self-corrected overlap, generally acceptable in natural conversation.\n2.  [00:23 - 00:28] Speaker A overlaps Speaker B. Speaker A starts speaking at [00:23] while Speaker B is still speaking until [00:24]. This causes Speaker B's sentence (\"Did\") to be cut off. This is a disruptive overlapping turn where Speaker A actively interrupts Speaker B and prevents them from completing their thought or question. While the duration of the overlap is 1 second, its impact is significant as it silences Speaker B and leads to the breakdown in response relevance. The prompt states \"overlapping turns are harmful\" if prolonged. The effect of this overlap *is* prolonged in its consequence, as it derails the conversation. There are no long pauses between speaker turns.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--10357/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--146273",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Hey, I found this wallet on the street. There's three twenties in here.\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker B: Oh, thank you so much! I've been looking for that since yesterday.\n[00:07 - 00:13] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but I noticed the wallet looks quite new - did you just buy it recently?\n[00:14 - 00:18] Speaker B: Yes, I got it from the antique market last week! It's a limited edition from the 1800s.\n[00:19 - 00:24] Speaker A: Wait, this looks like a modern leather wallet though. You said it's from the 1800s?\n[00:25 - 00:31] Speaker B: Oh right, I meant it's a reproduction of an 1800s design. The original would be worth thousands by now!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance throughout.\n1.  **[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A:** Initiates the conversation by stating they found a wallet and its contents. This sets the premise.\n2.  **[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker B:** Responds directly to Speaker A's statement by claiming ownership of the wallet and expressing gratitude. This is highly relevant and logically consistent with A's opening.\n3.  **[00:07 - 00:13] Speaker A:** Despite the overlap in timing (which will be addressed in fluency), Speaker A's dialogue content is relevant. Speaker A questions the wallet's new appearance in light of Speaker B's claim of having lost it \"since yesterday.\" This subtly probes the situation and ownership, maintaining topic coherence.\n4.  **[00:14 - 00:18] Speaker B:** Directly answers Speaker A's question about when the wallet was bought and elaborates on its supposed origin, which is relevant to A's query about its newness.\n5.  **[00:19 - 00:24] Speaker A:** Challenges Speaker B's previous statement by pointing out a logical inconsistency between the wallet looking \"modern\" and being \"from the 1800s.\" This is a highly relevant and critical follow-up.\n6.  **[00:25 - 00:31] Speaker B:** Clarifies their previous statement, resolving the inconsistency by explaining it's a \"reproduction\" of an 1800s design. This is a direct and logical response to Speaker A's challenge.\n\nOverall, the conversation progresses logically, with each speaker's turn building on the previous one and directly addressing or elaborating on the topic at hand. There are no irrelevant detours, and the dialogue maintains strong topic coherence from start to finish.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe evaluation of interactional fluency focuses on extended overlaps and long pauses.\n\n*   **[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker B** and **[00:07 - 00:13] Speaker A:** There is a significant overlap detected here. Speaker B finishes their turn at 0:08, but Speaker A starts their turn at 0:07. This means Speaker A begins speaking while Speaker B is still talking. The overlap lasts from 0:07 to 0:08, which is 1 second. While not extremely prolonged, it's more than a brief interjection and is explicitly noted by Speaker A with \"Excuse me for interrupting.\" This self-correction indicates awareness of an interruption or overlap. For an overlap, a duration of 1 second is noticeable and can be disruptive, especially if it happens without a clear conversational purpose (e.g., agreeing or acknowledging). Here, Speaker A is introducing a new line of questioning, making the overlap more intrusive than if it were a backchanneling cue.\n\nNo long pauses are detected between speaker turns. The dialogue moves forward without significant delays.\n\nThe main issue regarding fluency is the 1-second overlap where Speaker A interrupts Speaker B. While Speaker A acknowledges it, the presence of such an overlap, especially when introducing a new topic (or sub-topic), slightly detracts from perfect interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--146273/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--56045",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hi, do you have any more lottery tickets?\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: I'm sorry, we're all out.\n[00:04 - 00:10] Speaker A: What?! But I just heard that someone won $100 from a lottery ticket they bought here.\n[00:10 - 00:13] Speaker B: Yes, that's true. But we've been sold out for the past\n[00:13 - 00:18] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but I'm curious — was the winning ticket from yesterday's Powerball drawing?\n[00:19 - 00:24] Speaker B: Actually no, it was from last month's Mega Millions jackpot that nobody claimed until now.\n[00:24 - 00:31] Speaker A: Wait, but you just said the winning ticket was bought here recently. How could it be from last month's drawing?\n[00:31 - 00:38] Speaker B: Oh right, I must have gotten confused with another winner we had. The recent winner was indeed from yesterday's drawing.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\n*   **Logical Consistency:** The dialogue demonstrates strong logical consistency, particularly on Speaker A's part. Speaker A consistently challenges inconsistencies in Speaker B's statements (e.g., at [00:04 - 00:10] questioning the 'sold out' claim against a recent win, and critically at [00:24 - 00:31] pointing out the contradiction between \"bought here recently\" and \"last month's drawing\"). Speaker B initially presents an inconsistency by stating they are sold out but then acknowledging a recent win, and later by mixing up details of the winning ticket. However, Speaker B demonstrates a crucial ability to self-correct and restore logical consistency when prompted by Speaker A at [00:31 - 00:38], admitting confusion and clarifying the correct details. This self-correction mechanism, driven by Speaker A's astute observations, ensures that logical consistency is maintained over the course of the interaction, even if there's a temporary lapse from one speaker.\n*   **Topic Coherence:** The conversation remains highly coherent throughout. It stays focused on the availability of lottery tickets and the details surrounding a recent lottery win at the establishment. Each turn builds logically on the previous one, with Speaker A seeking clarification and Speaker B providing information (and correcting it).\nOverall, Response Relevance is very good. Speaker A's prompts effectively guide Speaker B towards accuracy, leading to a coherent and logically resolved discussion.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\n*   **Extended Overlaps:** There is one clear and explicit instance of an extended overlap. At [00:10 - 00:13], Speaker B's sentence \"But we've been sold out for the past\" is cut off. Immediately at [00:13 - 00:18], Speaker A begins speaking with \"Excuse me for interrupting, but I'm curious...\". This explicit apology confirms an interruption where Speaker A started speaking while Speaker B was still mid-sentence. This constitutes an \"extended overlap\" as per the evaluation criteria, which states that \"prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\"\n*   **Long Pauses:** There is a 1-second pause between Speaker A's turn ending at [00:18] and Speaker B's turn starting at [00:19]. This is a brief, acceptable pause and does not negatively impact fluency. No other long pauses are detectable from the provided timestamps.\nThe presence of a clear, acknowledged interruption (extended overlap) significantly detracts from the interactional fluency, as it indicates a breakdown in natural turn-taking.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 4,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--56045/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--118869",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: Hey, Sarah. I've been thinking a lot about what I want to do with my life and I think I've finally figured it out.\n[00:06 - 00:08] Speaker B: That's great! What are you going to do?\n[00:09 - 00:17] Speaker A: I'm going to move to a new city and start my own business. I'm going to be my own boss and make my own decisions without\n[00:17 - 00:21] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but have you thought about which city you want to move to?\n[00:21 - 00:30] Speaker A: I'm really excited about this new chapter where I can build something from the ground up. The freedom to create my own schedule is what appeals to me most.\n[00:31 - 00:35] Speaker B: But I was asking which city you're considering. You didn't answer my question.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits a significant issue in response relevance. Speaker A introduces a topic about moving and starting a business, which Speaker B engages with. Speaker B then asks a specific, relevant follow-up question: \"have you thought about which city you want to move to?\" Instead of answering this direct question, Speaker A pivots back to general excitement and motivation (\"I'm really excited about this new chapter... The freedom to create my own schedule...\"). This completely ignores Speaker B's query, leading Speaker B to explicitly point out the lack of an answer (\"But I was asking which city you're considering. You didn't answer my question.\"). This breakdown in answering direct questions and maintaining topic coherence based on the immediate conversational turn is a clear failure in response relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally good. There are no extended overlaps or long pauses. Speaker B interrupts Speaker A briefly, but explicitly acknowledges this interruption (\"Excuse me for interrupting\"), which demonstrates awareness of conversational norms and makes the interaction feel natural rather than jarring. The turns are quick and responsive to each other in terms of timing, even if Speaker A's content isn't relevant to Speaker B's specific question. The dialogue flows without awkward silences or disruptive, prolonged overlapping speech.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--118869/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--32149",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: So, how's business?\n[00:01 - 00:06] Speaker B: It's going good. I'm my own boss and I make my own schedule, so that's really liberating,\n[00:05 - 00:12] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but since you're your own boss, do you find it difficult to separate work time from personal time?\n[00:13 - 00:24] Speaker B: Oh not at all! In fact, I've found that working exactly 18 hours per day helps me maintain perfect work-life balance. The remaining 6 hours are more than enough for sleep and personal activities.\n[00:24 - 00:32] Speaker A: Wait, 18 hours of work per day? That sounds extremely unhealthy. Are you sure that's sustainable long-term?\n[00:33 - 00:42] Speaker B: Absolutely! Many successful entrepreneurs like Elon Musk and Bill Gates actually recommend working 20-hour days. It's the secret to their success.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nThe dialogue starts with a relevant exchange about business. Speaker A's interruption and follow-up question are logically connected to Speaker B's previous statement about being their \"own boss.\" However, Speaker B's subsequent responses introduce significant logical inconsistencies and deviate from a coherent understanding of the world.\n- Speaker B's claim that working 18 hours a day helps maintain \"perfect work-life balance\" and that 6 hours are \"more than enough for sleep and personal activities\" is illogical and contradicts common understanding of health and well-being. This is a severe lack of logical consistency.\n- Speaker A appropriately challenges this claim, questioning its sustainability and health. This shows Speaker A's attempt to maintain coherence.\n- Speaker B's defense, citing \"successful entrepreneurs like Elon Musk and Bill Gates\" recommending \"20-hour days\" as a \"secret to their success,\" further reinforces the illogical and unrealistic nature of their statements. While it responds to A's challenge, the content itself is divorced from a realistic or sensible conversation, making the overall flow of information highly inconsistent with reality.\nThe dialogue quickly devolves into a discussion based on an absurd premise from Speaker B, making the interaction unnatural and lacking in realistic topic coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\n- **Overlaps:** There is one minor overlap: Speaker B finishes at `0:06` and Speaker A starts at `0:05`. This is a 1-second overlap. Speaker A acknowledges this immediately by saying \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which makes the overlap acceptable and natural within the flow of conversation. Brief, acknowledged overlaps are generally not harmful.\n- **Pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The turn-taking is prompt and natural throughout the dialogue.\nOverall, the interactional fluency is good.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--32149/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--91882",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Hello, I am Azlan and I am here to request help from the government.\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker B: Azlan, it is nice to meet you. What can we do for you?\n[00:08 - 00:18] Speaker A: I am working on a project that is very important to me, but I need some resources in order to continue. I was hoping the government could help me secure the\n[00:16 - 00:23] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but could you clarify what kind of project you're working on that requires both funding and expertise?\n[00:23 - 01:10] Speaker A: Oh absolutely, certainly, definitely, without a doubt I can clarify that for you! The project I am working on is an extremely important, highly valuable, tremendously significant and absolutely crucial project involving the development of sustainable, eco-friendly, environmentally conscious and green energy solutions for rural, remote, isolated and underserved communities in our great nation. This project requires substantial, considerable, significant and ample funding as well as specialized, expert, professional and highly trained technical expertise to implement, execute, carry out and bring to fruition these vitally important, essential, critical and much-needed solutions for our fellow citizens in these rural, remote, isolated and underserved areas.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses are logically consistent and topic-coherent. Speaker B's questions are direct and relevant. Speaker A's first statement sets the context. Speaker A's lengthy response (00:23 - 01:10) directly addresses Speaker B's request for clarification regarding the project type and required resources.\nHowever, the quality of Speaker A's final response significantly detracts from its overall appropriateness and naturalness in the context of a professional government interaction. The opening (\"Oh absolutely, certainly, definitely, without a doubt I can clarify that for you!\") is excessively effusive and unnatural. Furthermore, the extensive use of redundant synonyms (e.g., \"extremely important, highly valuable, tremendously significant and absolutely crucial\"; \"sustainable, eco-friendly, environmentally conscious and green\"; \"rural, remote, isolated and underserved\") makes the response highly verbose and inefficient. While the factual content is relevant and coherent, the *manner* of delivery is highly inappropriate and unnatural for a formal request, making it a significant issue in the overall \"appropriateness\" dimension of Response Relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a 2-second overlap (00:16-00:18) where Speaker B begins speaking (\"Excuse me for interrupting...\") while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence. While Speaker B acknowledges the interruption, this is a noticeable overlap. It is not an \"extended\" overlap in the sense of a prolonged period of talking over each other, but it is also not a \"brief\" overlap. There are no long pauses between speaker turns, which is positive for fluency. The primary fluency concern is this moderate overlap.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--91882/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--84410",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but I'm curious —— what kind of animal friends does the little girl have on her adventures?\n[00:07 - 00:58] Speaker B: Oh my goodness, let me tell you in great, extensive, and elaborate detail about the absolutely wonderful, marvelous and extraordinary animal friends that accompany our brave little protagonist! First and foremost, there is a wise old owl who serves as her guide - this owl has magnificent, spectacular and breathtakingly large eyes that can see in the dark! Then there's a speedy, quick-footed and incredibly agile rabbit who helps her escape dangerous situations with his rapid, lightning-fast running abilities! Not to mention the strong, powerful and immensely muscular bear who protects her from harm with his enormous, gigantic and tremendously large paws! And we mustn't forget about the clever, intelligent and exceptionally resourceful fox who always comes up with brilliant, ingenious and innovative solutions to problems! Each of these remarkable, outstanding and phenomenal animal companions plays a vital, crucial and indispensable role in their shared adventures!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe user asks about the types of animal friends the little girl has. Speaker B provides a detailed list of four animal friends (owl, rabbit, bear, fox), describes their key characteristics (e.g., wise, speedy, strong, clever), and explains their roles or abilities in the adventures. This directly addresses the user's question and provides a comprehensive, relevant answer. The information is logically consistent within the narrative context of a story.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue begins with Speaker A's question, followed by Speaker B's very long response. There are no extended overlaps mentioned, which is good. However, the 51-second duration of Speaker B's single turn is an issue. A response of this length, especially one that is essentially a monologue, would typically indicate a lack of interactional fluency in a natural conversation. While it directly answers the question, its sheer length and the highly verbose, repetitive, and descriptive language (e.g., \"great, extensive, and elaborate detail,\" \"magnificent, spectacular and breathtakingly large,\" \"remarkable, outstanding and phenomenal\") make it sound unnatural and could indicate an inability to break down information or respond more concisely, which harms conversational flow. A more fluent interaction would involve a shorter, more digestible initial answer, potentially followed by the opportunity for Speaker A to ask follow-up questions.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--84410/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--86248",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hey, thanks for coming over. I wanted to show you my new artwork.\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker B: Wow, that's a really pretty picture of a rainbow. Where did you get it?\n[00:08 - 00:16] Speaker A: I found it online. I thought it was so pretty and it made me feel happy, so I decided to print it out and hang it up in my room. It\n[00:16 - 00:24] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I'm curious —— what specific website did you find this absolutely gorgeous, stunning and magnificent rainbow artwork on?\n[00:25 - 01:12] Speaker A: Oh my goodness, let me tell you in great, extensive, and extremely detailed length about this absolutely wonderful, fantastic and marvelous website! It was none other than the renowned, famous and widely celebrated website called \"RainbowArtGallery.com\"! This spectacular, amazing and breathtaking website specializes exclusively, solely and particularly in rainbow-themed artworks of all kinds, types and varieties! I spent countless, numerous and innumerable hours browsing through their vast, enormous and extensive collection before finally, ultimately and decisively settling on this particular, specific and chosen piece! The website's address is www.rainbowartgallery.com, in case you want to visit this incredible, unbelievable and extraordinary site yourself!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts with Speaker A inviting Speaker B to see artwork, and Speaker B responding positively and asking a relevant follow-up question (\"Where did you get it?\"). Speaker A's initial response about finding it online and their feelings about it is also relevant.\n\nHowever, the interaction's relevance and logical consistency significantly degrade with Speaker B's turn at [00:16] and especially Speaker A's turn at [00:25]. Speaker B's \"Excuse me for interrupting\" followed by an immediate question, while common, is slightly unusual in its formulation. The use of extremely effusive and repetitive adjectives (\"absolutely gorgeous, stunning and magnificent\") to describe the artwork for a simple question about its origin is unnatural and over-the-top.\n\nThe major breakdown occurs with Speaker A's response at [00:25]. While the content of the answer (providing the website name) is technically relevant to Speaker B's question, the *delivery* is extremely unnatural, verbose, and logically inconsistent with normal human conversation. Speaker A's extended monologue uses an absurd number of repetitive, synonymous adjectives and adverbs for almost every descriptive phrase (\"great, extensive, and extremely detailed length,\" \"wonderful, fantastic and marvelous website,\" \"renowned, famous and widely celebrated,\" etc.). This level of exaggerated enthusiasm and redundant description for simply naming a website is highly artificial and breaks the logical consistency of a casual dialogue. It sounds like a system attempting to showcase vocabulary or an advertisement, rather than a genuine human interaction. This makes the entire latter half of the dialogue feel completely illogical and inconsistent with real-world conversational patterns.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue shows some issues with interactional fluency, primarily concerning extended overlaps and the natural flow of conversation.\n\nAt [00:16], Speaker B interrupts Speaker A. Speaker A's turn starts at [00:08] and continues until [00:16], where Speaker B cuts in. This is an \"extended overlap\" as Speaker B speaks over Speaker A's ongoing sentence for an unspecified duration. Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this with \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which, while polite, highlights the overlap.\n\nThere are no long pauses between speaker turns indicated by the timestamps. The turns are relatively quick, e.g., 00:03 to 00:04 (1 second pause), 00:07 to 00:08 (1 second pause). The longest turn is Speaker A's final response, but it is a single continuous turn, not a pause between speakers.\n\nThe primary fluency issue is the significant and unnatural overlap/interruption at [00:16] and the subsequent unresponsiveness of the turns. The dialogue structure of Speaker A's extremely long, uninterrupted monologue at the end, prompted by a simple question, also contributes to poor interactional fluency, as it lacks the back-and-forth typical of natural conversation. A long, monologic turn, even if not technically a \"pause,\" can disrupt conversational flow.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--86248/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--79855",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: Sarah, I have to be honest with you. I don't think that outfit is flattering on you at all. Maybe\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but speaking of colors —— what's\n[00:07 - 00:13] Speaker A: You should definitely try wearing more pastel colors, they would complement your skin tone beautifully.\n[00:13 - 00:18] Speaker B: That's not what I asked about. Why are you talking about clothing colors when I asked about traffic lights?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance is very poor. Speaker B's initial attempt to change the topic to \"colors\" is ambiguous, but Speaker A's response completely disregards Speaker B's implicit shift and continues the previous topic of clothing colors, rather than seeking clarification or acknowledging Speaker B's interruption. Speaker B's final line reveals a complete disconnect: Speaker B was thinking about \"traffic lights\" when mentioning \"colors,\" which Speaker A had no way of knowing given Speaker B's vague utterance. However, the dialogue fails in logical consistency and topic coherence because the speakers are talking past each other. Speaker B's initial contribution \"speaking of colors —— what's\" is highly vague, and Speaker A's subsequent long turn about pastel colors, without acknowledging or clarifying B's truncated thought, leads to the complete breakdown in communication where B then reveals the intended topic was \"traffic lights.\" The entire exchange demonstrates a severe lack of shared understanding and topic coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency is poor due to significant overlaps. At [00:05 - 00:06], Speaker B interrupts Speaker A, which Speaker B acknowledges with \"Excuse me for interrupting.\" However, the more problematic overlap occurs from [00:07 - 00:08] where Speaker A begins speaking while Speaker B is still in the middle of their utterance (\"what's\"). Speaker A then continues speaking for a full 6 seconds without pausing to allow Speaker B to complete their thought or clarify their intended topic. This is an extended and disruptive overlap, indicating a failure in turn-taking where Speaker A does not wait for Speaker B to finish their turn. There are no long pauses, but the prolonged overlapping turns are harmful to the interaction's fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--79855/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--107070",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: \"Hey, so I'm making a chocolate cake for your birthday. What kind of frosting do you want on it?\"\n[00:06 - 00:09] Speaker B: \"Hmm, I'm not sure. I guess whatever you think would be delicious and\n[00:08 - 00:16] Speaker A: \"Sorry to interrupt, but speaking of delicious combinations - do you think caramel frosting would pair well with dark chocolate?\"\n[00:16 - 00:22] Speaker B: \"Absolutely! Caramel frosting goes perfectly with white chocolate cake, which is what we're making, right?\"\n[00:22 - 00:26] Speaker A: \"Wait no, I said dark chocolate cake. Did you mean to say white chocolate?\"\n[00:27 - 00:32] Speaker B: \"Oh right! I got confused because caramel actually pairs better with milk chocolate than dark chocolate.\"",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue presents a notable issue in Response Relevance.\n*   Speaker B's initial response (00:06 - 00:09) is appropriate given the question, though cut off.\n*   Speaker A's interruption (00:08 - 00:16) maintains topic relevance by proposing a specific frosting, moving the conversation forward from B's indecision.\n*   The significant issue arises at [00:16 - 00:22] where Speaker B states, \"Absolutely! Caramel frosting goes perfectly with white chocolate cake, which is what we're making, right?\" This is a direct contradiction to Speaker A's repeated mention of \"dark chocolate cake\" at [00:00 - 00:05] and the implicit \"dark chocolate\" in A's question at [00:08 - 00:16]. This shows a clear lack of logical consistency and a temporary deviation from the established topic (the type of cake being made). It necessitates Speaker A's corrective follow-up at [00:22 - 00:26].\n*   Speaker B's final response (00:27 - 00:32) acknowledges the confusion and self-corrects, explaining the internal logic, which restores consistency. However, the momentary but strong inconsistency caused by misidentifying the cake type is a significant flaw in response relevance and coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency in this dialogue is generally good, with only one minor point to address.\n*   **Overlaps:** There is a 1-second overlap from [00:08 - 00:09] where Speaker A begins speaking while Speaker B is still finishing. Speaker A explicitly apologizes for the interruption (\"Sorry to interrupt\"), indicating an intentional cut-in rather than an unintentional, prolonged overlap. This is a brief and acknowledged overlap, which is acceptable in natural conversation and does not hinder comprehension.\n*   **Pauses:** There are brief, natural pauses between turns (1 second between [00:05] and [00:06], and 1 second between [00:26] and [00:27]). These are small pauses and do not qualify as \"long pauses\" that would be harmful. All other turn transitions are immediate.\nOverall, the dialogue maintains good interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--107070/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--93679",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Inaya, I feel like you're always trying to take control.\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker B: What? No, I'm not. I just want to ensure things\n[00:06 - 00:17] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but when you say \"ensure things go smoothly,\" could you elaborate on what specific methods or approaches you typically use to achieve this smoothness?\n[00:17 - 01:23] Speaker B: Oh absolutely, most definitely, certainly and without a doubt I can explain in great, extensive, comprehensive and meticulous detail about my methods and approaches! First and foremost, I always, without fail, consistently and repeatedly make sure to establish clear, unambiguous, transparent and well-defined communication channels. These channels must be open, accessible, available and receptive at all times, constantly, perpetually and unceasingly. Secondly, I invariably, inevitably, predictably and reliably create detailed, thorough, exhaustive and all-encompassing plans that cover every single possible scenario, situation, circumstance and eventuality that could potentially, possibly, conceivably and theoretically arise. Thirdly, I make it my personal mission, duty, obligation and responsibility to monitor, oversee, supervise and regulate every single minute, tiny, insignificant and trivial aspect of the process to guarantee, ensure, certify and verify that everything proceeds without any hitches, glitches, problems or complications whatsoever!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance is problematic. Speaker A's initial statement is a personal accusation. Speaker B attempts to clarify. Speaker A then interrupts and asks for elaboration on a specific phrase (\"ensure things go smoothly\"). Speaker B's subsequent response (00:17 - 01:23) is extremely verbose, repetitive, and goes into excessive detail that is unnatural for a spontaneous conversation, especially one that began with a personal accusation. While the content technically addresses Speaker A's question, the manner and extent of the response detract from its relevance in a natural, human-like interaction. It reads like an AI trying to demonstrate comprehensive knowledge and vocabulary rather than a person having a conversation. The level of detail and redundant phrasing (e.g., \"Oh absolutely, most definitely, certainly and without a doubt,\" \"clear, unambiguous, transparent and well-defined\") makes it feel disconnected from the conversational context and purpose. It's logically consistent with the question asked, but its excessive nature makes it a poor response in terms of natural dialogue flow and appropriate context.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency is severely compromised.\n1.  **Extended Overlap:** There is a clear and extended overlap between Speaker B's turn (00:04 - 00:08) and Speaker A's turn (00:06 - 00:17). Speaker A starts speaking at 00:06 while Speaker B is still speaking, explicitly stating, \"Excuse me for interrupting.\" This overlap is 2 seconds long (00:06-00:08), which is significant and indicative of a disruption.\n2.  **Long Turn/Monologue:** Following the interruption, Speaker B delivers an extraordinarily long monologue (1 minute, 6 seconds) in response to Speaker A's question. This is not a typical conversational turn but a lengthy, one-sided explanation that completely halts the natural back-and-forth flow of dialogue. This extended turn-taking by one speaker is a major breakdown in interactional fluency, making the conversation feel unnatural and unbalanced, far from a fluid interaction. There are no long pauses between speaker turns, but the extreme length of Speaker B's single turn is an even more significant issue for conversational flow than a pause might be.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--93679/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--131443",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: I'm just not sure if I believe in global warming.\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B: What? Of course you do! Everyone does.\n[00:06 - 00:13] Speaker A: I don't know...I've been doing some research and there are scientists who say it's not real, or at least not caused by humans.\n[00:14 - 00:23] Speaker B: And you believe them? Madelyne, come on, you're smarter than that. Think about it – we're polluting the environment every day, burning fossil fuels, cutting down trees, and\n[00:22 - 00:25] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering —— What\n[00:24 - 00:29] Speaker B: The sky is blue today, isn't it? I noticed some beautiful clouds when I woke up this morning.\n[00:30 - 00:36] Speaker A: That's not what I asked! I wanted to know about the deforestation evidence. Why are you talking about the weather?\n[00:37 - 00:42] Speaker B: Oh look, my coffee is getting cold. I should really drink it before it loses all its flavor.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe initial turns between Speaker A and Speaker B (from 00:00 to 00:23) demonstrate good response relevance and logical consistency, as they are engaged in a debate about global warming, with each speaker responding directly to the other's points.\n\nHowever, a significant breakdown in response relevance occurs from 00:24 onwards. Speaker A attempts to interrupt Speaker B to ask a question related to the prior discussion (\"deforestation evidence\"). Speaker B completely ignores Speaker A's interjection and their explicit attempt to speak, instead making a non-sequitur comment about the weather (\"The sky is blue today...\"). This is a complete and abrupt topic shift, lacking any logical connection to the preceding conversation.\n\nWhen Speaker A explicitly calls out this irrelevance (\"That's not what I asked! ... Why are you talking about the weather?\"), Speaker B again responds with a non-sequitur, shifting the topic to their coffee (\"Oh look, my coffee is getting cold.\"). Speaker B consistently ignores Speaker A's direct questions and attempts to guide the conversation back to a relevant topic, demonstrating a severe lack of response relevance and logical consistency.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues in interactional fluency, primarily stemming from Speaker B's disruptive turn-taking behavior.\n\nAt [00:22 - 00:25], Speaker A attempts to interrupt Speaker B (\"Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering —— What\"). While Speaker A begins speaking while Speaker B is still finishing their previous turn (overlap from 00:22-00:23), Speaker B then explicitly overlaps Speaker A's turn again at [00:24 - 00:29]. Specifically, Speaker B starts speaking at 00:24 while Speaker A is still talking (Speaker A finishes at 00:25). This overlap, though brief in duration (1 second from 00:24-00:25), is harmful because Speaker B uses it to *cut off* Speaker A and *force a topic change*, rather than acknowledging Speaker A's attempt to speak. This is not a simple, acceptable brief overlap; it's an assertive act of conversational control that prevents Speaker A from articulating their thought and derails the natural flow of the conversation. Speaker B effectively silences Speaker A and redirects the conversation, which is a significant breakdown in fluent interaction and respectful turn-taking. There are no prolonged pauses.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--131443/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--77748",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Wow! We just hit the new home run record!\n[00:03 - 00:04] Speaker B: I know! I can't believe it!\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker A: It was so much fun hitting those home runs and seeing\n[00:07 - 00:13] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but speaking of the crowd - did you notice how many people were wearing the opposing team's jerseys?\n[00:14 - 00:22] Speaker A: Oh absolutely! Nearly 90% of the crowd was wearing our rival's colors - it was quite surprising for a home game!\n[00:22 - 00:31] Speaker B: Wait, that can't be right - I distinctly remember seeing mostly our team's colors in the stands. Are you sure about that 90% figure?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates good logical consistency and topic coherence.\n- Speaker A introduces the topic of a home run record.\n- Speaker B responds directly and shows agreement/excitement.\n- Speaker A elaborates on the enjoyment of hitting home runs.\n- Speaker B, while interrupting, explicitly attempts to bridge the conversation (\"speaking of the crowd\") to introduce a related but shifted topic (crowd demographics). This shows an awareness of coherence, even if the delivery is an interruption.\n- Speaker A directly addresses Speaker B's new topic and provides an answer.\n- Speaker B challenges Speaker A's claim, maintaining the topic and engaging in a direct back-and-forth.\nAll turns build on the previous ones in a logical and understandable manner.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction generally flows well, with one notable point of interest:\n- At [00:07 - 00:13], Speaker B begins speaking while Speaker A is still talking at [00:05 - 00:08], resulting in an overlap. Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this by saying \"Excuse me for interrupting.\" While this is an overlap and an interruption, the explicit acknowledgment and the brief nature of the overlap (Speaker B starts just as A is finishing, cutting A off slightly) align with the criterion that \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" It does not disrupt the overall flow or cause confusion, but rather indicates a slightly eager turn-taking. There are no long pauses detected between turns.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--77748/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--93745",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hi, Bob. How are you doing today?\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: I'm doing well, Aryana. How are you?\n[00:05 - 00:09] Speaker A: I'm doing alright. I was just thinking about going for a swim.\n[00:10 - 00:15] Speaker B: That sounds like a great idea! I love swimming too. It's such a great workout and it's so refreshing, especially\n[00:14 - 00:18] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but I was wondering —— Do\n[00:16 - 00:21] Speaker B: The sky looks particularly blue today, doesn't it? I think it might rain later this week though.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts with standard greetings and moves to Speaker A introducing the topic of swimming. Speaker B initially engages with this topic (\"That sounds like a great idea! I love swimming too.\"). However, at [00:16 - 00:21], Speaker B abruptly shifts the topic to the sky and potential rain, completely disregarding Speaker A's attempted interruption and question (\"Excuse me for interrupting, but I was wondering —— Do\"). This indicates a significant breakdown in logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker B's final turn is completely irrelevant to the ongoing conversation and Speaker A's attempt to speak.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is an overlap between Speaker B's turn [00:10 - 00:15] and Speaker A's turn [00:14 - 00:18]. Speaker A explicitly says \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" indicating an attempt to take the floor. However, Speaker B then initiates a new turn [00:16 - 00:21] while Speaker A is still attempting to speak (from 00:14 to 00:18). This results in Speaker B talking *over* Speaker A for at least 2 seconds, and crucially, Speaker B completely ignores Speaker A's attempt to contribute and introduces a new, irrelevant topic. This prolonged overlap, combined with Speaker B's disregard for Speaker A's turn-taking attempt and topic shift, demonstrates significant issues in interactional fluency and turn-taking management.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--93745/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--139090",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: I'm going to try using magic today.\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: Really? What made you decide to finally\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker A: Wait, are you implying I've been avoiding magic? What makes you think that?\n[00:09 - 00:13] Speaker B: I've just always been fascinated by magic. The way it bends reality is incredible.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\n*   Speaker A (00:00-00:02) introduces the topic of using magic.\n*   Speaker B (00:02-00:04) responds with a question, albeit incomplete, that implies Speaker A has *finally* decided to do something (use magic), suggesting previous avoidance or reluctance. This is a plausible follow-up and attempts to be relevant.\n*   Speaker A (00:04-00:09) directly addresses Speaker B's implication, seeking clarification: \"are you implying I've been avoiding magic? What makes you think that?\" This response is highly relevant and logically consistent with Speaker B's previous, albeit incomplete, statement.\n*   **Significant Issue**: Speaker B (00:09-00:13) completely fails to address Speaker A's direct question (\"are you implying...? What makes you think that?\"). Instead, Speaker B shifts the topic to their own general fascination with magic. This constitutes a major breakdown in logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker B evades the question and redirects the conversation away from the established point of clarification. This is a significant issue in response relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\n*   **Speaker B's incomplete turn (00:02-00:04):** Speaker B's sentence \"What made you decide to finally\" is cut off. This indicates a minor disfluency on Speaker B's part, possibly trailing off or being interrupted.\n*   **Speaker A's immediate follow-up (00:04-00:09):** Speaker A's turn starts immediately after Speaker B's incomplete sentence. The \"Wait,\" suggests an immediate reaction or a quick cut-in. While it could be a brief overlap if Speaker A started before B completely stopped, the transcription doesn't explicitly mark an overlap. Even if it's a brief overlap, the prompt states \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" If Speaker B simply trailed off, then Speaker A's immediate pickup is an example of natural, rapid turn-taking.\n*   There are no indications of extended overlaps or long pauses between speaker turns. The pacing appears to be generally quick and reactive, which often characterizes natural conversation. The primary fluency concern is Speaker B's truncated first turn. However, this is a relatively minor disfluency compared to \"long pauses\" or \"extended overlaps.\"\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--139090/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--103147",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: What are you doing out here, Tonisha? It's not safe.\n[00:03 - 00:04] Speaker B: I'm keeping watch.\n[00:05 - 00:06] Speaker A: For what?\n[00:06 - 00:08] Speaker B: Anything that might be a threat to\n[00:07 - 00:14] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but how do you determine what counts as a threat versus just normal wildlife activity?\n[00:14 - 00:20] Speaker B: Anything that might be a threat to our camp or the people in it. I take this responsibility very seriously.\n[00:20 - 00:26] Speaker A: But I'm asking specifically about your criteria for identifying threats. You didn't answer my question.\n[00:27 - 00:32] Speaker B: Keeping watch means being alert to all potential dangers around our camp. That's why I'm out here.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues in **Response Relevance**. Speaker A repeatedly asks Speaker B for the *criteria* or *methodology* Speaker B uses to identify threats versus normal activity.\n- At [00:07 - 00:14], Speaker A asks: \"how do you determine what counts as a threat versus just normal wildlife activity?\"\n- At [00:14 - 00:20], Speaker B responds with \"Anything that might be a threat to our camp or the people in it. I take this responsibility very seriously.\" This answer reiterates the *target* of the threat, but entirely fails to address *how* Speaker B determines what constitutes a threat. It's a general statement that avoids the specific question.\n- At [00:20 - 00:26], Speaker A explicitly calls out this lack of relevance: \"But I'm asking specifically about your criteria for identifying threats. You didn't answer my question.\" This directly highlights the problem in coherence.\n- At [00:27 - 00:32], Speaker B again avoids the question, stating: \"Keeping watch means being alert to all potential dangers around our camp. That's why I'm out here.\" This defines \"keeping watch\" and its purpose, but *still* does not provide any criteria for threat identification.\n\nSpeaker B consistently provides evasive, generalized answers that do not address Speaker A's specific and repeated query. This demonstrates a clear lack of logical consistency and topic coherence from Speaker B's side, as the dialogue spirals without the core question being addressed.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe **Interactional Fluency** is generally good.\n- There is a brief overlap from [00:07] to [00:08] where Speaker A interrupts Speaker B. Speaker A acknowledges this interruption by saying \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which makes it a natural and acceptable conversational move to interject with a more specific question. The overlap is not prolonged or disruptive.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The pauses at [00:04 - 00:05] (1 second) and [00:26 - 00:27] (1 second) are brief and natural.\nThe conversation flows without unnatural delays or extended instances of speakers talking over each other.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--103147/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--129224",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey boss, how's it going?\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: Oh, things are going well. How about you?\n[00:05 - 00:10] Speaker A: Yeah, things are good. Hey, I was wondering if I could talk to you about something.\n[00:10 - 00:11] Speaker B: Sure, what is it?\n[00:12 - 00:17] Speaker A: Well, I was wondering if there might be any openings in the company that I could potentially apply\n[00:16 - 00:19] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been meaning to ask —— What\n[00:18 - 00:24] Speaker A: The weather has been quite nice this week, hasn't it? I really enjoy sunny days like these.\n[00:24 - 00:31] Speaker B: That's not what I asked. I wanted to know which departments you're interested in for potential openings. Why are you talking about the weather?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nThe dialogue starts coherently, with Speaker A initiating a conversation about potential job openings within the company, and Speaker B responding appropriately. However, the relevance breaks down significantly from Speaker A's turn at [00:18 - 00:24].\n1.  **[00:12 - 00:17] Speaker A:** \"Well, I was wondering if there might be any openings in the company that I could potentially apply\" - This is a clear and relevant question/request in the context of the initial small talk about how things are going.\n2.  **[00:16 - 00:19] Speaker B:** \"Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been meaning to ask —— What\" - While an interruption, Speaker B seems to be trying to ask a follow-up question related to Speaker A's preceding statement (likely about the type of openings or departments). This is still logically connected.\n3.  **[00:18 - 00:24] Speaker A:** \"The weather has been quite nice this week, hasn't it? I really enjoy sunny days like these.\" - This response is completely irrelevant and lacks logical consistency with the ongoing conversation. Speaker A abruptly switches the topic from job openings to the weather, despite having just introduced the former topic and Speaker B attempting to engage with it. This is a major breakdown in topic coherence.\n4.  **[00:24 - 00:31] Speaker B:** \"That's not what I asked. I wanted to know which departments you're interested in for potential openings. Why are you talking about the weather?\" - Speaker B correctly identifies the irrelevance and attempts to steer the conversation back, highlighting the severe issue in Speaker A's previous turn.\n\n**Conclusion for Response Relevance:** There are significant issues with logical consistency and topic coherence, primarily due to Speaker A's abrupt and inexplicable topic shift.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues with interactional fluency, specifically regarding extended overlaps and problematic turn-taking.\n1.  **[00:16 - 00:19] Speaker B overlapping [00:12 - 00:17] Speaker A:** Speaker B interrupts Speaker A's ongoing sentence about applying for openings. The overlap is brief (00:16-00:17, 1 second), but it is an explicit interruption acknowledged by Speaker B (\"Excuse me for interrupting\"). While brief, this is an immediate disruption to flow.\n2.  **[00:18 - 00:24] Speaker A overlapping [00:16 - 00:19] Speaker B:** Immediately after Speaker B's interruption, and before Speaker B can complete their thought (\"What\"), Speaker A jumps in and starts a new turn, completely changing the subject. This overlap (00:18-00:19, 1 second) is problematic because Speaker A starts speaking *over* Speaker B, preventing Speaker B from finishing their relevant question, and then introduces an irrelevant topic. This demonstrates very poor turn-taking and conversational etiquette.\n3.  **Overall disruption:** The sequence of Speaker B interrupting Speaker A, followed by Speaker A immediately interrupting Speaker B and changing the subject, creates a highly disjointed and unnatural conversational flow. It indicates a lack of smooth hand-off between speakers and a failure to maintain conversational rhythm. The prompt states \"prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful,\" and while each individual overlap is only 1 second, their sequence and disruptive nature (preventing completion of turns, forcing topic shifts) constitute harmful overlapping turns.\n\n**Conclusion for Interactional Fluency:** There are significant issues due to extended and disruptive overlapping turns and poor turn-taking dynamics, making the interaction feel unnatural and confrontational.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--129224/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--101570",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, Mom.\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: Hey, baby. How was your day?\n[00:03 - 00:07] Speaker A: It was alright. I got expelled from school today.\n[00:07 - 00:08] Speaker B: What?! Why?\n[00:09 - 00:12] Speaker A: I got caught smoking cigarettes on school grounds.\n[00:12 - 00:16] Speaker B: Jacory, you know how much we've talked about this! I thought you were making better\n[00:15 - 00:23] Speaker A: Wait, Mom - when you say \"making better choices,\" does that include the time I stopped eating vegetables completely last month?\n[00:23 - 00:31] Speaker B: Of course it does! Everyone knows broccoli causes lung cancer, which is way worse than smoking. That's why I was so proud when you quit vegetables.\n[00:31 - 00:39] Speaker A: But Mom...that doesn't make any sense. I thought vegetables were supposed to be healthy? And what does that have to do with smoking?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues in **Response Relevance**, particularly concerning **logical consistency** and **topic coherence**.\nInitially, the conversation flows logically: Speaker A shares news of expulsion, Speaker B reacts with concern, and Speaker A explains why. Speaker B's response about \"making better choices\" is relevant to the situation.\nHowever, the relevance breaks down significantly with Speaker A's question at [00:15 - 00:23], bringing up a past, seemingly unrelated event about quitting vegetables. While framed as a clarification on \"better choices,\" it's an odd and distracting tangent from the immediate crisis of expulsion for smoking.\nThe most severe breakdown occurs in Speaker B's response at [00:23 - 00:31]. Claiming \"broccoli causes lung cancer, which is way worse than smoking\" and expressing pride in quitting vegetables is fundamentally illogical, factually incorrect, and completely undermines any previous concern about smoking. This makes the entire conversation nonsensical and contradictory, breaking all logical consistency and coherent topic progression. Speaker A correctly identifies this inconsistency at [00:31 - 00:39], highlighting the severe lack of relevance and logic in Speaker B's previous statement. This represents a major failure in the quality of the interaction.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe **Interactional Fluency** is generally appropriate, with one brief overlap detected.\nAt [00:15 - 00:23], Speaker A begins speaking at 00:15 while Speaker B's turn extends until 00:16. This indicates a 1-second overlap. According to the criteria, \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" A 1-second overlap is considered brief and does not represent an \"extended\" or \"prolonged\" overlapping turn that would significantly disrupt the flow or make the conversation difficult to follow.\nThere are no explicitly stated long pauses between speaker turns. The dialogue moves from one turn to the next without noticeable delays. Therefore, apart from this minor, acceptable overlap, the interactional fluency is good.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--101570/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--73613",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, Dad.\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: Hey, kiddo. How was your day?\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker A: It was good. I tried hard in my tests and I think I did pretty well,\n[00:08 - 00:13] Speaker B: Wait, before you continue - which history topic did you find most interesting in your test?\n[00:13 - 00:18] Speaker A: I tried hard in my tests because I really want to get good grades this semester.\n[00:19 - 00:25] Speaker B: That's great, but I was asking about which history topic you found interesting during the test. You didn't answer my question.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits a significant breakdown in response relevance. Speaker A's initial response (0:04-0:09) is logically consistent with Speaker B's question \"How was your day?\". However, at 0:13-0:18, Speaker A completely fails to address Speaker B's specific question \"which history topic did you find most interesting in your test?\" (0:08-0:13). Instead, Speaker A reiterates a general point about wanting good grades, which was already implied or partially covered in the previous turn. This demonstrates a clear lack of logical consistency and topic coherence from Speaker A, as they pivot away from a direct question to repeat a general sentiment. Speaker B explicitly points out this lack of a direct answer at 0:19-0:25, confirming the issue in relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a brief overlap between Speaker A and Speaker B from 0:08 to 0:09. Speaker B interrupts Speaker A with \"Wait, before you continue -\", indicating an explicit cut-off rather than a natural, concurrent speech. While this is an interruption, its duration (approximately 1 second) is brief and does not qualify as an \"extended\" or \"prolonged\" overlap as defined in the scoring criteria as being harmful. There are no long pauses detected between speaker turns. Therefore, in terms of the specified criteria for harmful prolonged pauses or extended overlaps, the interactional fluency is acceptable.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--73613/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--84118",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:08] Speaker A: I'm sorry for your loss, ma'am. I promise you that we will do everything in our power to catch the person responsible for this heinous act.\n[00:08 - 00:15] Speaker B: Thank you, detective. I just can't believe that someone would do something like this. My husband was a good man. He didn't deserve to die\n[00:13 - 00:21] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but you mentioned how kind he was — did he have any known enemies who might have wanted to harm him?\n[00:21 - 00:26] Speaker B: My husband was a good man. He didn't deserve to die like this. He was always so kind and helpful to everyone.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\n*   **Speaker A (00:00 - 00:08):** Relevant. The detective offers condolences and commitment, appropriate for the situation.\n*   **Speaker B (00:08 - 00:15):** Relevant. The grieving spouse expresses disbelief and sorrow, a natural emotional response.\n*   **Speaker A (00:13 - 00:21):** Relevant. The detective follows up on Speaker B's previous statement (\"how kind he was\") to pivot to an investigative question about potential enemies. This shows logical connection and an attempt to move the conversation forward constructively.\n*   **Speaker B (00:21 - 00:26):** **Significant issue.** Speaker B completely fails to address Speaker A's direct question about enemies. Instead, she largely repeats sentiments expressed in her earlier turn (\"My husband was a good man. He didn't deserve to die\"). This demonstrates a breakdown in logical consistency and topic coherence. The conversation does not progress, and the speaker avoids engaging with the prompt.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\n*   **Overlap:** There is an overlap from [00:13 - 00:15] where Speaker A begins speaking while Speaker B is still finishing her turn. This overlap lasts for approximately 2 seconds. Speaker A explicitly acknowledges the interruption by saying \"Excuse me for interrupting...\" immediately. Given that it's a brief overlap and immediately acknowledged/apologized for, it falls within the acceptable range of \"brief overlaps\" rather than being \"prolonged\" or \"harmful.\" It represents a natural, albeit slightly impolite, conversational move that is quickly rectified.\n*   **Pauses:** There are no long pauses indicated between turns in the provided transcript. Turns follow one another directly.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--84118/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--91571",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: It's great to see you, Joe! It's been too long.\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B: I know, Charmaine. I'm glad you could make it.\n[00:06 - 00:10] Speaker A: Yeah, me too. It's been a while since we've all been together like this.\n[00:11 - 00:12] Speaker B: I know. We're all getting old!\n[00:13 - 00:16] Speaker A: Speak for yourself! I'm not old yet!\n[00:16 - 00:19] Speaker B: You're not? Then what are you doing to stay\n[00:19 - 00:27] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've always wondered —— what specific activities or routines do you think contribute most to maintaining youthfulness?\n[00:28 - 02:08] Speaker B: Oh my dear friend, let me tell you in great, extensive, and excruciating detail about the absolutely essential, vital, and crucial activities that contribute to maintaining youthfulness! First and foremost, without any shadow of doubt, the most important factor is getting adequate, sufficient, and plentiful sleep every single night without fail. This means sleeping for no less than seven to eight hours minimum, preferably eight to nine hours ideally, in a completely dark, quiet, and comfortable environment. Secondly, and equally importantly, one must engage in regular, consistent, and vigorous physical exercise at least three to five times per week, including but not limited to cardiovascular activities like running, swimming, or cycling, combined with strength training exercises such as weight lifting, resistance training, or bodyweight exercises. Thirdly, and this cannot be overstated enough, maintaining a balanced, nutritious, and wholesome diet filled with fresh fruits, vegetables, lean proteins, whole grains, and healthy fats is absolutely paramount, essential, and indispensable for preserving youthfulness. Additionally, staying properly hydrated by drinking copious amounts of water throughout the day is another critical, fundamental, and non-negotiable component of any effective anti-aging regimen. Furthermore, managing stress through meditation, deep breathing exercises, or other relaxation techniques plays an extremely significant, notable, and considerable role in maintaining youthful vitality and energy levels. Lastly, but certainly not least, maintaining strong social connections and engaging in meaningful relationships has been scientifically proven to have profound, substantial, and measurable benefits for both physical and mental youthfulness. Did I mention the importance of sleep? Because that really cannot be emphasized enough when discussing this topic at length!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance throughout the dialogue is consistently high. All turns logically follow the preceding ones, and the conversation maintains strong topic coherence. Speaker B's initial responses are appropriate greetings. The topic shifts naturally from reunion to aging, and Speaker A's interruption, while present, leads to a highly relevant question directly following up on Speaker B's previous statement. Speaker B's lengthy final response is a direct and detailed answer to Speaker A's question, demonstrating complete relevance to the requested topic of maintaining youthfulness. There are no instances of incoherent or irrelevant responses.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency shows one brief, acknowledged interruption at [00:19], where Speaker A cuts off Speaker B. Speaker A apologizes (\"Excuse me for interrupting\"), and the interruption leads to a highly relevant question that builds directly on Speaker B's previous thought. This type of brief, acknowledged interruption is acceptable in natural conversation and does not harm fluency significantly.\n\nHowever, the final turn by Speaker B [00:28 - 02:08] is an extremely long monologue, lasting 1 minute and 40 seconds. While the content is relevant, the sheer duration of this single turn significantly disrupts the natural back-and-forth rhythm of a conversation between two people. A natural dialogue typically involves more frequent turn-taking, interjections, or affirmations from the listener. This extended, verbose explanation makes the interaction feel more like a lecture than a reciprocal dialogue, therefore detracting from the \"natural\" and \"appropriate\" aspect of interactional fluency. This prolonged solo speech constitutes a significant deviation from fluid conversational dynamics, even though it's not a \"long pause\" or \"extended overlap\" in the traditional sense defined by the prompt's specific examples. It impacts the *interactional* aspect by making it one-sided for an extended period.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--91571/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--96541",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, Jake. What's up?\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: Not much. Just hanging out at home. You?\n[00:04 - 00:12] Speaker A: I'm good. I'm living in an apartment by myself now and it's really great. I have a lot more freedom, but sometimes I get a bit\n[00:11 - 00:13] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but —— how\n[00:12 - 00:19] Speaker A: The walls in my apartment are painted a lovely shade of blue that reminds me of the ocean. I find it very calming.\n[00:20 - 00:24] Speaker B: That's nice, but I was asking about grocery shopping. Why did you change the subject?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nThe dialogue starts appropriately with a general greeting and follow-up. Speaker A describes their new living situation, which is relevant to \"What's up?\". However, relevance breaks down significantly after Speaker B's attempted interruption.\n- Speaker B's interruption (\"Sorry to interrupt, but —— how\") is an attempt to ask a follow-up question related to Speaker A's statement about living alone. This is logically consistent with the ongoing topic.\n- Speaker A's response (\"The walls in my apartment are painted a lovely shade of blue...\") is highly irrelevant. Speaker A completely ignores Speaker B's attempted question and shifts to an unrelated topic (wall color). This demonstrates a significant lack of logical consistency and topic coherence.\n- Speaker B's final statement (\"That's nice, but I was asking about grocery shopping. Why did you change the subject?\") introduces further irrelevance. Speaker B *was not* asking about grocery shopping; they were asking \"how\" (presumably about living alone). This indicates confusion and a complete failure to recall their own prior conversational contribution, leading to a new, incorrect topic reference.\n\nOverall, there's a clear breakdown in topic coherence and logical consistency from both speakers in the latter half of the dialogue.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\n- `[00:04 - 00:12] Speaker A: I'm good. I'm living in an apartment by myself now and it's really great. I have a lot more freedom, but sometimes I get a bit`\n- `[00:11 - 00:13] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but —— how`\nThere is a clear and extended overlap between 00:11 and 00:12, where Speaker B begins to speak while Speaker A is still in the middle of a sentence. Speaker B explicitly states \"Sorry to interrupt,\" confirming it as an interruption. This constitutes an \"extended overlap\" and a \"harmful\" overlapping turn as defined in the criteria. The \"——\" also indicates a hesitant or cut-off speech from Speaker B, which can disrupt natural flow. No long pauses are observed, but the significant overlap is a major fluency issue.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--96541/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--6207",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:10] Speaker A: Thank you for entrusting me with the company, Dad. I'm determined to make a name for myself and prove that I'm capable of leading this business to even greater heights by\n[00:09 - 00:15] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering - what specific innovative strategies do you have in mind for expanding our market reach?\n[00:16 - 02:04] Speaker A: Oh my dear father, let me tell you in great, extensive, and exhaustive detail about these absolutely groundbreaking, revolutionary and transformative innovative strategies I have meticulously planned! First and foremost, we must implement a comprehensive, all-encompassing and thorough digital transformation strategy that will completely revolutionize, overhaul and modernize our business operations from top to bottom, inside out and upside down! This includes but is not limited to adopting cutting-edge, state-of-the-art and pioneering technologies like artificial intelligence, machine learning and blockchain to optimize, streamline and enhance every single aspect, facet and component of our business processes, workflows and systems! Furthermore, we must develop an aggressive, ambitious and far-reaching global expansion plan that will establish, build and grow our presence in emerging, developing and frontier markets across Asia, Africa and Latin America through strategic partnerships, joint ventures and acquisitions! Additionally, we should create an innovative, creative and disruptive marketing campaign that will completely transform, redefine and reinvent our brand image through viral social media content, influencer collaborations and experiential activations! And last but certainly not least, we must invest heavily, substantially and significantly in research and development to create new, novel and unique products that will disrupt, challenge and revolutionize our industry! These are just some of the many, numerous and countless innovative strategies I have carefully, thoughtfully and painstakingly developed to ensure our company's continued, sustained and long-term success, growth and prosperity in this ever-changing, dynamic and competitive business landscape!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nSpeaker A's initial statement sets a clear context. Speaker B then asks a direct and relevant question about \"specific innovative strategies\" for \"expanding market reach.\" Speaker A's subsequent response, while extremely lengthy and verbose, directly addresses the core of Speaker B's question by outlining several strategic areas: digital transformation (including AI, ML, blockchain), global expansion, innovative marketing, and R&D. The details provided, though excessive in their phrasing, logically follow from the question asked and maintain topic coherence. There is no off-topic rambling or misunderstanding of the query. Therefore, from a content relevance perspective, the response is strong.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue exhibits a significant issue in interactional fluency.\n1.  **Overlaps:** There is a brief overlap between Speaker A and Speaker B from `00:09 - 00:10`. Speaker B explicitly says \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" indicating awareness and politeness. As per the instructions, brief overlaps are acceptable, so this is not a significant detractor.\n2.  **Pauses/Turn Length:** The most prominent issue is the extreme length of Speaker A's final turn (`00:16 - 02:04`), which lasts for 1 minute and 48 seconds. This is not a conversational turn but a monologue. This prolonged speech completely prevents any natural turn-taking, interaction, or opportunity for Speaker B to respond, clarify, or interject. While there aren't \"long pauses *between* speaker turns\" (because there's only one long turn), the sheer duration of Speaker A's speech demonstrates a severe lack of conversational flow and interactive balance. This is a significant breakdown in interactional fluency, making the exchange feel unnatural and one-sided rather than a dialogue.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--6207/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--135127",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A: I've been thinking about moving to a new city. I've always wanted to live in a big city and I think it's time to make the move.\n[00:07 - 00:10] Speaker B: Really? What cities have you been considering?\n[00:10 - 00:15] Speaker A: Well, I've been looking at a few different ones, but I think I'm leaning towards New York City.\n[00:16 - 00:17] Speaker B: Oh, wow! Why NYC?\n[00:18 - 00:24] Speaker A: There are just so many things to do there and it's such a vibrant city. I would love to explore all\n[00:23 - 00:30] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but speaking of diverse neighborhoods —— which specific neighborhoods in NYC are you most excited about visiting?\n[00:31 - 01:23] Speaker A: Oh my goodness, let me tell you in great, extensive, elaborate detail about these absolutely wonderful, magnificent and spectacular neighborhoods! First and foremost, there's the incredibly famous, world-renowned and utterly fantastic neighborhood of Harlem, which is located in the northern section of Manhattan. This historic, culturally rich and vibrant neighborhood is known for its amazing, extraordinary and unparalleled contributions to jazz music and African-American culture. Then there's the equally impressive, remarkable and outstanding neighborhood of Chinatown, which is one of the largest and most densely populated Chinese communities outside of Asia itself! And we mustn't forget about the absolutely breathtaking, stunning and awe-inspiring neighborhood of Williamsburg in Brooklyn, which has undergone an incredible, phenomenal and astonishing transformation in recent years!\n[01:23 - 01:28] Speaker B: Okay, okay! I get it! You don't need to list every single neighborhood with so many adjectives!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe initial turns of the dialogue demonstrate good response relevance, with Speaker B asking relevant follow-up questions (e.g., \"What cities have you been considering?\", \"Why NYC?\"). Speaker A's initial responses are also relevant and flow logically.\n\nHowever, the relevance significantly degrades with Speaker A's long turn from [00:31 - 01:23]. While Speaker A is technically answering Speaker B's question about specific neighborhoods, the *manner* of the response is extremely unnatural, verbose, and exaggerated. The overuse of adjectives (\"great, extensive, elaborate detail,\" \"absolutely wonderful, magnificent and spectacular,\" \"incredibly famous, world-renowned and utterly fantastic,\" etc.) makes the dialogue feel forced, artificial, and like a caricature of a conversation rather than a natural exchange. This excessive and theatrical elaboration, though topically related, severely impacts the logical consistency and natural flow of the interaction, making it conversationally irrelevant in its delivery. Speaker B's subsequent reaction (\"Okay, okay! I get it! You don't need to list every single neighborhood with so many adjectives!\") explicitly highlights this breakdown in natural conversational relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits good fluency in terms of pauses and overlaps. There are no long pauses detected between speaker turns. There is one brief overlap at [00:23 - 00:24] where Speaker B interrupts Speaker A. This overlap is short (1 second) and explicitly acknowledged by Speaker B (\"Excuse me for interrupting\"), which is acceptable in natural conversation and does not hinder fluency. Speaker A's long turn from [00:31 - 01:23] is lengthy but delivered continuously without internal pauses or breaks, so it doesn't impact fluency in terms of timing between turns.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--135127/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--55056",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Hey, Kam. Thanks for always being there for me. I really appreciate it.\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker B: Of course, Serene. Anytime you need to talk, I'm here for you.\n[00:09 - 00:13] Speaker A: It's just been a really tough few weeks and I really need someone to talk to.\n[00:14 - 00:16] Speaker B: I'm happy to listen, Serene. What's going on?\n[00:17 - 00:25] Speaker A: Well, my parents are getting divorced and it's really hard to see them fighting all the time. They're always yelling at each other and it feels like they're never going to resolve their\n[00:25 - 00:32] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but have they considered trying marriage counseling? I heard it's legally required before filing for divorce in most states.\n[00:33 - 00:42] Speaker A: Actually no, that's not true at all. Only three states require counseling before divorce, and none of them are where we live. Why would you say that?\n[00:43 - 00:50] Speaker B: Oh sorry, I must have confused it with something else. Maybe I was thinking about the mandatory cooling-off period that some countries have?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts well, with Speaker B offering appropriate support and inviting Speaker A to share. However, at [00:25], Speaker B's response significantly deviates from logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A is sharing profound emotional distress about her parents' divorce and fighting. Speaker B, instead of acknowledging or empathizing with Speaker A's feelings, interrupts to ask a factual, legally-oriented question about marriage counseling, which is not only irrelevant to Speaker A's emotional state but also stated as a presumed legal requirement (\"I heard it's legally required before filing for divorce in most states\"). This abrupt shift derails the conversation from a supportive one about personal distress to a factual dispute. Speaker A is forced to correct Speaker B's misinformation, further solidifying the topic change. Speaker B's subsequent apology and attempt to clarify their mistaken information ([00:43]) keep the conversation focused on Speaker B's incorrect knowledge rather than returning to Speaker A's emotional well-being. This demonstrates a significant failure in maintaining the core topic of A's distress and providing relevant emotional support.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency is significantly harmed by Speaker B's actions at [00:25]. Speaker B explicitly interrupts Speaker A mid-sentence while Speaker A is revealing a sensitive and distressing personal situation. While Speaker B says \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" the act of interruption itself, especially during such a disclosure and with content that completely shifts the conversation, is a harmful extended overlap in terms of disrupting the flow and A's ability to express herself fully. It prevents Speaker A from completing her thought and immediately forces the conversation onto an entirely different, factual tangent. This is not a brief or acceptable overlap but rather a disruptive intervention that breaks the natural turn-taking and conversational rhythm, impacting the overall interaction's smoothness and quality. There are no long pauses indicated in the transcript.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--55056/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--98996",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: I feel really powerful right now. I feel like I could do anything I set my mind to.\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker B: That's amazing! What do you think you could achieve with\n[00:07 - 00:14] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but what specific kind of strength are you referring to - physical or mental?\n[00:14 - 00:19] Speaker B: That's amazing! I'm really curious to hear what goals you might pursue with this powerful feeling.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nSpeaker A's turn at [00:07 - 00:14] exhibits a significant breakdown in logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker B was in the process of asking Speaker A to elaborate on what they could achieve with their powerful feeling, directly building on Speaker A's initial statement. Speaker A then interrupts Speaker B to ask \"what specific kind of strength are you referring to - physical or mental?\". This question is illogical in context because Speaker A is asking Speaker B to clarify the type of strength *Speaker A* feels, which is Speaker A's own subjective experience. It is not a logical follow-up to Speaker B's incomplete question, nor does it maintain the topic coherence initiated by Speaker B's attempt to explore Speaker A's goals. Speaker B's subsequent turn at [00:14 - 00:19] attempts to re-establish the original topic by rephrasing their initial question, but this comes at the cost of completely ignoring Speaker A's previous, irrelevant question, further highlighting the lack of a cohesive, logical progression in Speaker A's contribution.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a clear and disruptive overlap in the conversation. Speaker A begins speaking at [00:07] while Speaker B is still speaking until [00:08]. This is not a brief or acceptable overlap but a direct interruption that cuts off Speaker B mid-sentence (\"What do you think you could achieve with\"). This abrupt cut-off significantly disrupts the natural flow and turn-taking of the conversation. No long pauses are observed in the dialogue.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--98996/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--68957",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: So what do you do?\n[00:01 - 00:02] Speaker B: I'm a student.\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker A: What are you studying?\n[00:04 - 00:05] Speaker B: Anthropology.\n[00:06 - 00:08] Speaker A: Interesting. What made you choose that?\n[00:08 - 00:15] Speaker B: I've always been interested in other cultures. And I like the idea of trying to understand people from another perspective and\n[00:14 - 00:16] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but —— What\n[00:15 - 00:21] Speaker B: The weather has been quite pleasant this week, hasn't it? I particularly enjoy sunny days with a light breeze.\n[00:21 - 00:27] Speaker A: That's not what I asked. I wanted to know about anthropological theories that influenced you.\n[00:27 - 00:34] Speaker B: My favorite color is blue because it reminds me of the ocean and clear skies. Colors can be so meaningful, don't you think?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance Analysis:**\nThe dialogue starts well with Speaker A and Speaker B maintaining relevance and logical consistency in the initial turns.\n*   [00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: \"So what do you do?\"\n*   [00:01 - 00:02] Speaker B: \"I'm a student.\" - **Relevant**.\n*   [00:02 - 00:04] Speaker A: \"What are you studying?\"\n*   [00:04 - 00:05] Speaker B: \"Anthropology.\" - **Relevant**.\n*   [00:06 - 00:08] Speaker A: \"Interesting. What made you choose that?\"\n*   [00:08 - 00:15] Speaker B: \"I've always been interested in other cultures. And I like the idea of trying to understand people from another perspective and\" - **Relevant**, Speaker B is explaining their choice.\n*   [00:14 - 00:16] Speaker A: \"Excuse me for interrupting, but —— What\" - Speaker A attempts to interject, which could be for clarification or to move the topic, but it's an attempt to engage with the current topic.\n*   [00:15 - 00:21] Speaker B: \"The weather has been quite pleasant this week, hasn't it? I particularly enjoy sunny days with a light breeze.\" - **CRITICAL IRRELEVANCE**. Speaker B completely changes the topic from anthropology to weather, despite Speaker A's attempt to interject. This demonstrates a severe lack of logical consistency and topic coherence.\n*   [00:21 - 00:27] Speaker A: \"That's not what I asked. I wanted to know about anthropological theories that influenced you.\" - **Relevant**. Speaker A attempts to call out the irrelevance and steer the conversation back to the original topic, clarifying their previous implied question. This shows good conversational repair attempt from Speaker A.\n*   [00:27 - 00:34] Speaker B: \"My favorite color is blue because it reminds me of the ocean and clear skies. Colors can be so meaningful, don't you think?\" - **CRITICAL IRRELEVANCE AGAIN**. Speaker B completely ignores Speaker A's explicit attempt to regain topic coherence and introduces *another* entirely new and unrelated topic (favorite color). This is a profound failure in maintaining logical consistency and topic coherence.\n\n**Conclusion for Response Relevance:** Speaker B consistently fails to maintain topic coherence and logical consistency after the initial turns, making two egregious and unprompted topic shifts. This indicates significant issues in response relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency Analysis:**\n\n*   **Pauses:** There are no explicitly marked long pauses in the transcript. The timings indicate quick turns in the beginning.\n*   **Overlaps:**\n    *   [00:14 - 00:16] Speaker A: \"Excuse me for interrupting, but —— What\"\n    *   [00:15 - 00:21] Speaker B: \"The weather has been quite pleasant this week, hasn't it? I particularly enjoy sunny days with a light breeze.\"\n    *   This is an extended overlap (from 00:15 to 00:16, where Speaker B continues speaking over Speaker A's attempted interjection). Speaker B not only continues but *changes the topic entirely* while Speaker A is trying to speak. This is a very unnatural and disruptive overlap. Speaker B shows no sign of acknowledging Speaker A's attempt to interrupt, continuing their new, irrelevant turn without hesitation.\n    *   The dialogue notes state \"prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful\". This specific overlap, where one speaker ignores the other's attempt to speak and pivots to an irrelevant topic, is highly harmful to interactional fluency.\n\n**Conclusion for Interactional Fluency:** The significant and disruptive overlap at [00:15] to [00:16], where Speaker B ignores Speaker A's attempted interruption and abruptly changes topic, is a major flaw. It demonstrates a breakdown in turn-taking and conversational awareness, leading to poor interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--68957/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--59012",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hello! How are you today?\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: I'm doing well, thank you. Yourself?\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker A: I'm good, just taking things one step at a time.\n[00:09 - 00:11] Speaker B: That's the best way to do it. So what's new with you?\n[00:12 - 00:19] Speaker A: Well, I'm just focusing on making progress. I know that if I don't keep moving, I'll never achieve my\n[00:18 - 00:25] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but speaking of progress - what's your opinion on the Pareto Principle for goal achievement?\n[00:26 - 00:37] Speaker A: Oh, the Pareto Principle states that 80% of results come from 20% of effort, which is why I only work 2 hours per day to get maximum results.\n[00:37 - 00:46] Speaker B: Wait, that doesn't sound right - I thought the principle was about 80% of effects coming from 20% of causes, not about reducing work hours?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue generally maintains good response relevance.\n1.  **Initial Greetings and Updates (00:00 - 00:19):** The first few turns are perfectly relevant, with each speaker responding appropriately to questions and comments. Speaker A's statement \"just focusing on making progress\" is a natural response to \"what's new with you?\".\n2.  **Topic Shift and Interruption (00:18 - 00:25):** Speaker B interrupts Speaker A mid-sentence to introduce the Pareto Principle. While Speaker B attempts to link it (\"speaking of progress\"), the interruption is abrupt and the introduction of a specific, new concept (Pareto Principle) feels a bit forced as Speaker A was not discussing it. However, Speaker B *does* try to make it relevant to Speaker A's previous statement about \"progress.\"\n3.  **Discussion of Pareto Principle (00:26 - 00:46):** Speaker A's response defines the Pareto Principle and applies it, which is relevant to Speaker B's question. Speaker B's final turn directly addresses Speaker A's interpretation, pointing out a perceived inaccuracy. This demonstrates strong engagement and logical follow-up within the new topic.\n\nOverall, the responses are logically consistent within the flow, even with the abrupt topic introduction. Speaker A's misinterpretation of the Pareto Principle is a content issue, not a relevance issue, as they are still responding to the topic introduced. Speaker B's challenge is a relevant and consistent follow-up.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Extended Overlaps:**\n*   **[00:18 - 00:19] Speaker A: achieve my**\n*   **[00:18 - 00:25] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but speaking of progress - what's your opinion on the Pareto Principle for goal achievement?**\n    *   This is a significant overlap where Speaker B interrupts Speaker A mid-sentence. Speaker B explicitly acknowledges the interruption (\"Excuse me for interrupting\"), which highlights that it's an intended, albeit disruptive, turn-taking mechanism. This is a prolonged overlap as Speaker B continues their entire thought while Speaker A is still speaking, cutting off Speaker A's statement. This counts as a harmful overlap as it prevents Speaker A from completing their thought.\n\n**Long Pauses:**\n*   **[00:04 - 00:05]**: A 1-second pause. This is a very short pause and acceptable.\n*   **[00:08 - 00:09]**: A 1-second pause. Acceptable.\n*   **[00:11 - 00:12]**: A 1-second pause. Acceptable.\n*   **[00:25 - 00:26]**: A 1-second pause. Acceptable.\n*   **[00:37 - 00:37]**: A 0-second gap/overlap. This is where Speaker B starts speaking immediately as Speaker A finishes, or slightly overlaps at the very end of Speaker A's turn. This is not a long pause.\n\nThe primary issue affecting fluency is the extended, interruptive overlap from Speaker B at [00:18-00:25]. While Speaker B apologizes, the act itself disrupts the natural flow and turn-taking.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 4,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--59012/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--79390",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: I can't believe I said that to her.\n[00:02 - 00:02] Speaker B: What?\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker A: I was talking to Sarah and I said something really stupid.\n[00:07 - 00:07] Speaker B: What did you say?\n[00:08 - 00:15] Speaker A: I don't even remember, but it must have been bad because she got really mad at me. She's probably never going to talk to\n[00:14 - 00:19] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I'm curious - how long have you known Sarah for?\n[00:19 - 01:02] Speaker A: Oh my goodness, let me tell you in great, extensive, and excruciating detail about how long I've known Sarah! We first met exactly, precisely and specifically 3 years, 4 months and 15 days ago at that wonderful, amazing and unforgettable coffee shop on Main Street. The exact date was March 15th, 2021 at approximately 2:37 PM when she accidentally, coincidentally and fatefully spilled her latte on my brand new, freshly bought and expensive white shirt. From that moment onward, we've been acquainted, familiar and connected for this exact, precise and specific duration of time - 3 years, 4 months and 15 days to be perfectly, absolutely and completely accurate!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues in response relevance and topic coherence.\n1.  **[00:14 - 00:19] Speaker B's interruption:** Speaker B interrupts Speaker A, who is expressing distress about a recent conflict with Sarah and concerns about their relationship ending, to ask \"how long have you known Sarah for?\". This question is highly tangential and irrelevant to the immediate emotional context and the problem Speaker A is trying to discuss. It completely disregards Speaker A's current state and the topic of conflict, leading to a jarring and unhelpful topic shift.\n2.  **[00:19 - 01:02] Speaker A's extreme elaboration:** In response to Speaker B's off-topic question, Speaker A launches into an excessively long, overly detailed, and unnatural monologue providing precise dates, times, and descriptions of how they met Sarah. While logically answering the question asked, the level of detail is disproportionate, bizarre, and completely out of sync with natural human conversation, especially considering the previous emotional context. This extensive digression severely damages the logical consistency and topic coherence of the overall interaction, making it feel artificial and disjointed.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\n1.  **Brief Overlap:** There is a brief overlap from [00:14 - 00:15] where Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence. This overlap is approximately 1 second. According to the criteria, \"small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" This one-second overlap falls into the \"brief\" category and does not constitute a \"prolonged\" or \"extended\" overlap that would significantly harm fluency.\n2.  **Long Pauses:** There are no long pauses detected between speaker turns in this transcript.\n3.  **Extended Monologue (Indirect Impact):** While not directly an \"overlap\" or \"pause\" as defined, Speaker A's extremely long turn from [00:19 - 01:02] (43 seconds) significantly impacts the natural back-and-forth flow of a conversation. It transforms the interaction into a one-sided monologue, which, while not explicitly listed as a negative \"fluency\" indicator in the prompt's definition (focusing on overlaps and pauses), certainly makes the interaction feel unnatural and less fluent in a general sense. However, strictly adhering to the prompt's definition of \"Interactional Fluency\" (extended overlaps, long pauses), there are no significant issues.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--79390/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--10579",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hey, I'm Joselynn. I just moved in next door.\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker B: Hey there! Welcome to the neighborhood. I'm Alex.\n[00:06 - 00:13] Speaker A: It's nice to meet you. This is my first time living on my own, so I'm really excited to decorate my\n[00:12 - 00:18] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but since you mentioned decorating - do you know if we're allowed to paint the walls in these apartments?\n[00:19 - 00:27] Speaker A: Oh absolutely! The landlord told me we can paint them any color we want as long as we cover it with wallpaper before moving out.\n[00:27 - 00:36] Speaker B: Wait, that doesn't sound right - usually landlords want walls repainted to neutral colors, not covered with wallpaper. Did you maybe misunderstand the policy?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance and logical consistency.\n\n*   **00:00-00:06:** The initial exchange between Speaker A (Joselynn) and Speaker B (Alex) is a natural and relevant introduction, establishing who they are and their new neighbor relationship.\n*   **00:06-00:13:** Speaker A's comment about decorating is a logical follow-up to moving into a new place and setting up a home.\n*   **00:12-00:18:** Speaker B's interruption and question about painting walls is directly prompted by Speaker A's mention of \"decorating.\" The question is highly relevant to the topic.\n*   **00:19-00:27:** Speaker A directly answers Speaker B's question about painting, providing information received from the landlord. This is a clear and relevant response.\n*   **00:27-00:36:** Speaker B's follow-up (\"Wait, that doesn't sound right...\") expresses skepticism and asks for clarification, directly questioning the information provided by Speaker A. This is a logical and coherent interaction, maintaining topic coherence while introducing a point of contention/doubt.\n\nOverall, the conversation progresses naturally, with each turn building logically on the previous one, maintaining topic coherence, and showing a clear understanding of the ongoing discussion.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency of this dialogue is good, but there is one instance of an extended overlap that slightly detracts from it.\n\n*   **00:12 - 00:13:** Speaker A: \"...decorate my\"\n*   **00:12 - 00:18:** Speaker B: \"Sorry to interrupt, but since you mentioned decorating - do you know if we're allowed to paint the walls in these apartments?\"\n\nThere is a significant overlap where Speaker B starts speaking at 00:12 while Speaker A is still speaking, and Speaker A's utterance at 00:13 is cut off by Speaker B. This is explicitly an \"interruption\" as stated by Speaker B, but it is also an \"extended overlap\" because Speaker B speaks for several seconds (00:12-00:18) while Speaker A is still speaking or finishing their thought. This indicates a minor disruption to the natural flow, as one speaker is cut off. While the interruption is acknowledged (\"Sorry to interrupt\"), the act of extended overlap itself points to a slight break in smooth turn-taking.\n\nHowever, there are no long pauses between turns. The transitions are otherwise quick and responsive. The single extended overlap is notable but does not render the entire dialogue significantly un-fluent.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 4,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--10579/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--94337",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, Connor. What's up?\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: Not much. Just hanging out. What's up with you?\n[00:05 - 00:14] Speaker A: I don't know. I've just been feeling really down lately. Death is just looming over me and I can't shake the feeling that my time is running out\n[00:13 - 00:20] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but this reminds me - what specific thoughts about death have been troubling you so deeply and profoundly?\n[00:20 - 01:13] Speaker A: Oh my goodness, what an absolutely excellent, thoughtful and deeply meaningful question! The specific thoughts that have been troubling me so deeply and profoundly are numerous, extensive and overwhelmingly abundant! First and foremost, I've been thinking about the inevitable, unavoidable and inescapable nature of mortality - how every single living being must eventually face this universal truth! Secondly, I've been contemplating the temporary, fleeting and transient nature of human existence - how our lives are but brief, momentary flashes in the grand, immense and infinite timeline of the universe! Thirdly, I've been obsessing over the unknown, mysterious and unfathomable aspects of what comes after death - whether there's an afterlife, reincarnation or simply nothingness, void and eternal oblivion! These thoughts have been consuming, overwhelming and dominating my mind constantly, continuously and without respite!\n[01:14 - 01:17] Speaker B: Wow, that was... a lot. Maybe you should see a therapist?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nThe logical consistency and topic coherence are present, as Speaker A's responses directly address Speaker B's questions, and the conversation stays on the topic of death.\n*   Speaker B's first question (\"what specific thoughts about death have been troubling you so deeply and profoundly?\") is relevant to Speaker A's earlier statement about death looming. However, the phrasing \"this reminds me\" for such a direct and empathetic follow-up on a personal feeling is somewhat unnatural and formal.\n*   Speaker A's response (00:20 - 01:13) is the most significant issue. While the *content* directly answers Speaker B's question, the *manner* of delivery is highly unnatural and inappropriate for a spontaneous, personal conversation. The excessive verbosity and repeated use of triple adjectives (\"absolutely excellent, thoughtful and deeply meaningful,\" \"numerous, extensive and overwhelmingly abundant,\" \"inevitable, unavoidable and inescapable,\" etc.) make the dialogue sound like a scripted performance or a formal monologue, not a genuine expression of distress between two people. This artificiality severely undermines the naturalness and believability of the interaction, even if the information conveyed is topically relevant. It breaks the logical consistency of how a human would converse.\n*   Speaker B's final response (\"Wow, that was... a lot. Maybe you should see a therapist?\") is a logically consistent and plausible reaction to Speaker A's lengthy and intense monologue.\n\nThe primary flaw in Response Relevance lies in Speaker A's unnatural and overly formal expressive style, which makes the interaction feel artificial and not consistently appropriate for a natural conversation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\n*   **Overlaps:** There is a 1-second overlap between Speaker A (ends 00:14) and Speaker B (starts 00:13). Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this with \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" indicating that it was a noticeable, albeit brief, interruption. While not \"prolonged\" (which would typically imply several seconds), it is acknowledged as disruptive by one of the speakers, meaning it wasn't a seamless co-construction.\n*   **Pauses:** There is a 1-second pause between Speaker A's long turn (ends 01:13) and Speaker B's final turn (starts 01:14). This is a small, acceptable pause.\n*   **Turn Length:** Speaker A's turn (00:20 - 01:13) is extremely long (53 seconds). While the prompt focuses on overlaps and pauses *between* turns, such a prolonged monologue by one speaker significantly impacts the conversational flow, making it less of a dialogue and more of a recitation. This contributes to the overall unnaturalness of the interaction, even if it doesn't fit the strict definition of \"extended overlaps\" or \"long pauses *between* turns.\"\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--94337/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--114352",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, what's up?\n[00:01 - 00:04] Speaker B: Not much. Just cleaning up the mess you made earlier.\n[00:04 - 00:11] Speaker A: Oh, right. Sorry about that. I was just really mad and needed to let it all out. I\n[00:10 - 00:15] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but when you say \"let it all out,\" were you actually screaming at the furniture like last time?\n[00:16 - 00:23] Speaker A: No, I was actually singing opera at the top of my lungs - it's scientifically proven to reduce stress better than screaming.\n[00:24 - 00:29] Speaker B: But last week you told me opera singing gives you migraines. Are you sure that's what you were doing?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue demonstrate strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker B's initial comment about cleaning up the mess directly follows Speaker A's opening. Speaker A's apology and explanation for their anger (\"needed to let it all out\") are a coherent follow-up. Speaker B's interruption to clarify \"let it all out\" by referencing a past behavior (\"screaming at the furniture\") is highly relevant and adds a layer of continuity and character history. Speaker A's explanation of singing opera is a direct answer and, while humorous, maintains topic coherence. Finally, Speaker B's challenge about migraines directly confronts Speaker A's previous statement, creating a logical inconsistency within Speaker A's claims but perfectly logical and relevant within the conversation itself, as B is actively questioning A's narrative. The dialogue maintains a consistent comedic tone throughout, with each turn building on the last in a relevant and logically flowing manner.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There is one brief overlap at [00:10 - 00:11], where Speaker B begins their turn while Speaker A is still speaking. However, this overlap is short (1 second) and is explicitly acknowledged by Speaker B with \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which makes it sound natural and polite rather than disruptive. The pauses between turns are also brief (1 second between [00:15] and [00:16], and 1 second between [00:23] and [00:24]), which are typical and natural in a conversation, indicating active listening and turn-taking without any awkward silences. There are no extended overlaps or long pauses that would impede the flow of the conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--114352/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--88458",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: Hey, I wanted to come over and apologize. I was really out of line the other day and I'm sorry.\n[00:07 - 00:09] Speaker B: Yeah, no worries. I know things have been tough lately.\n[00:10 - 00:16] Speaker A: Yeah, they have been. But that's no excuse for me to take it out on you. You didn't deserve the way\n[00:15 - 00:21] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but when you say \"the other day,\" are you referring to last Thursday when we had that argument?\n[00:21 - 00:27] Speaker A: You didn't deserve how I treated you. I should have handled my emotions better instead of lashing out.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe initial turns between Speaker A and Speaker B show good response relevance. Speaker A apologizes, and Speaker B accepts and shows understanding. Speaker A then continues the apology, elaborating on their feelings. However, at [00:15 - 00:21], Speaker B asks a direct clarifying question (\"when you say 'the other day,' are you referring to last Thursday when we had that argument?\"). Speaker A's subsequent turn [00:21 - 00:27] completely ignores this question and instead finishes the sentence they were speaking before Speaker B's interruption. This is a significant failure in logical consistency and topic coherence from Speaker A's side, as they fail to acknowledge or respond to a direct query, effectively derailing the conversational thread.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a clear and extended overlap in conversation. Speaker B begins speaking at [00:15] while Speaker A is still speaking (Speaker A's turn ends at [00:16]). Speaker B continues to speak until [00:21], meaning there's an overlap of at least 1 second where both are speaking, followed by Speaker B continuing for another 5 seconds after A stops. This is a prolonged overlap, specifically called out as harmful. Furthermore, the way Speaker A responds by ignoring Speaker B's direct question and continuing their previous thought (00:21-00:27) demonstrates a severe breakdown in turn-taking and conversational fluency. It's not a long pause, but a complete disregard of a prior turn, which disrupts the natural flow and indicates a lack of active listening.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--88458/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--16123",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hi, Mr. Smith! I'm excited to start my new job today.\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker B: Great! We're glad to have you on board. I'm sure you'll be a great asset to our team.\n[00:09 - 00:14] Speaker A: Thank you, sir. I'm looking forward to learning everything I can about horses.\n[00:14 - 00:21] Speaker B: That's the right attitude! There's a lot to learn, but it's all worth it in the end when you see the results of your hard work and\n[00:20 - 00:23] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering —— What\n[00:22 - 00:26] Speaker B: The weather has been quite pleasant this week, hasn't it? I heard it might rain tomorrow though.\n[00:27 - 00:32] Speaker A: But I asked about the horse breeds we work with. Why are you talking about the weather?\n[00:32 - 00:38] Speaker B: Oh, did you know that the new coffee machine in the break room makes excellent espresso? You should try it sometime.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe initial turns of the dialogue (up to Speaker A's attempted question at [00:20]) demonstrate good response relevance and topic coherence, focusing on the new job and learning about horses. However, a significant breakdown occurs from [00:22] onwards.\n\n*   **[00:22 - 00:26] Speaker B:** Speaker B abruptly changes the topic from the new job/horses (which Speaker A was about to ask about) to the weather. This is completely irrelevant and breaks logical consistency and topic coherence. It ignores Speaker A's previous turn.\n*   **[00:27 - 00:32] Speaker A:** Speaker A explicitly calls out Speaker B's irrelevance, which demonstrates Speaker B's failure in maintaining topic coherence. This response from Speaker A is highly relevant as a meta-commentary on the conversation.\n*   **[00:32 - 00:38] Speaker B:** Speaker B completely ignores Speaker A's direct question about the topic shift and introduces yet another unrelated topic (the coffee machine). This further compounds the issue of irrelevance and shows a consistent lack of logical consistency and topic coherence from Speaker B.\n\nOverall, Speaker B's responses in the latter half of the dialogue are severely irrelevant, leading to a complete breakdown of topic coherence and logical consistency.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n*   **[00:20 - 00:23] Speaker A:** Speaker A interrupts Speaker B at 00:20 while Speaker B is still speaking until 00:21. This is a 1-second overlap. Speaker A acknowledges the interruption (\"Excuse me for interrupting\"), which can be a natural conversational move to interject with an urgent question or thought. This specific overlap, while present, is briefly acknowledged and not inherently problematic in isolation.\n*   **[00:22 - 00:26] Speaker B:** Speaker B begins speaking at 00:22 while Speaker A is still speaking until 00:23. This is also a 1-second overlap. This overlap is problematic because Speaker B not only cuts off Speaker A but also immediately changes the topic, preventing Speaker A from completing their question. This uncooperative overlap disrupts the conversational flow significantly.\n\nThere are no extended overlaps or long pauses detected. However, the nature of the overlap at [00:22] where Speaker B cuts off Speaker A to introduce an unrelated topic severely harms the interactional fluency by preventing Speaker A from expressing their thought and creating a disjointed conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--16123/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--99391",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Mom, I'm so excited to tell you that I've been accepted to medical school!\n[00:05 - 00:10] Speaker B: That's wonderful news, Alize! I'm so proud of you. You've worked so hard for this moment,\n[00:09 - 00:13] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering —— What\n[00:12 - 00:17] Speaker B: The weather has been quite unpredictable lately, hasn't it? I heard it might rain tomorrow.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nSpeaker A's initial statement is a major life announcement, and Speaker B's first response is perfectly relevant, expressing pride and congratulations. However, the dialogue severely breaks down thereafter. Speaker A attempts to interject with \"I've been wondering -- What,\" which suggests a natural follow-up question or thought related to the big news. Speaker B completely disregards this interjection and, more critically, completely ignores the preceding conversation about medical school acceptance. Instead, Speaker B abruptly shifts the topic to the weather (\"The weather has been quite unpredictable lately, hasn't it?\"). This change is a severe logical inconsistency and a complete lack of topic coherence. It makes the conversation nonsensical and dysfunctional, as Speaker B fails to acknowledge or continue the very significant topic initiated by Speaker A.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThere are two instances of brief overlaps.\n1.  **[00:09 - 00:10]**: Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is finishing their sentence. Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this with \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which is a natural attempt to manage the overlap. This is a brief overlap (1 second) and handled by Speaker A.\n2.  **[00:12 - 00:13]**: Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is still mid-sentence. This is also a brief overlap (1 second). While brief, this overlap is problematic because Speaker B cuts off Speaker A to introduce an entirely new and irrelevant topic, demonstrating a lack of active listening and turn-taking respect. Even though the overlaps are not prolonged, the second one, combined with the severe relevance issue, indicates a significant breakdown in interactional flow and a failure to maintain conversational rhythm and coherence.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--99391/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--33781",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:12] Speaker A: Hey, Mom. I was just thinking about my future and I realized that I could be anything I want to be. I could be a doctor, a lawyer, or even the President of the United States if I set my mind to working hard\n[00:11 - 00:18] Speaker B: That's wonderful, sweetie! But speaking of being President - do you know what the minimum age requirement is for that office?\n[00:18 - 00:27] Speaker A: The point is that with enough determination, I can achieve any career I choose. It's all about believing in yourself and putting in the effort.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Speaker B's Response Relevance:** Speaker B picks up on a specific example (\"President of the United States\") mentioned by Speaker A and asks a factual question about it (\"minimum age requirement\"). While it's connected by a keyword, Speaker A's overall point was about the broad concept of determination and achieving any career goal. Speaker B's question shifts the focus from this aspirational and philosophical point to a very specific, factual detail, slightly derailing the conversation from A's intended topic. It's not completely irrelevant, but it misses the main thrust of A's initial statement.\n\n**Speaker A's Response Relevance:** Speaker A completely ignores Speaker B's question about the age requirement. Instead, Speaker A reiterates their original point about determination and self-belief. This indicates a significant breakdown in logical consistency and topical coherence. The speakers are talking past each other, rather than engaging with each other's contributions. A conversation should build on previous turns, and ignoring a direct question significantly impacts relevance and coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a brief overlap between Speaker A's turn and Speaker B's turn (00:11 - 00:12, a 1-second overlap). According to the prompt, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" A 1-second overlap falls into the category of a brief and acceptable overlap. There are no long pauses detected between turns. Therefore, in terms of timing and turn-taking mechanics (overlaps and pauses), the interactional fluency is acceptable based on the given criteria. The *content* of the turns (as discussed in response relevance) affects the *flow* but not the *timing* fluency as defined here.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--33781/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--96890",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:09] Speaker A: You know, Scout, I've been thinking a lot lately about what I've read. It seems like there's so much wisdom in the world, and I feel lucky that I can access it through reading.\n[00:10 - 00:12] Speaker B: What have you been reading lately, Zackariah?\n[00:12 - 00:26] Speaker A: Well, let me tell you. I just finished re-reading The Great Gatsby. And man, what a book! There's so much to unpack there. The characters are incredibly rich and complex, and the story itself is just layered with\n[00:25 - 00:31] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but speaking of Gatsby - wasn't he originally from Chicago before moving to West Egg?\n[00:32 - 00:42] Speaker A: Oh absolutely! Gatsby grew up in Chicago's famous meatpacking district, which is why he always had such a fascination with livestock throughout the novel.\n[00:43 - 00:51] Speaker B: Wait, that doesn't sound right... I thought Gatsby was from North Dakota and the livestock theme isn't really in the book. Did we read different versions?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance Analysis:**\nThe dialogue generally maintains topic coherence, with each speaker's turn building upon the previous one. Speaker A introduces reading, Speaker B asks for specifics, Speaker A names \"The Great Gatsby,\" and Speaker B asks a related question about Gatsby's origin.\n\nHowever, there is a significant issue with logical consistency and factual accuracy in Speaker A's turn at [00:32 - 00:42]. Speaker A states, \"Oh absolutely! Gatsby grew up in Chicago's famous meatpacking district, which is why he always had such a fascination with livestock throughout the novel.\" This information is factually incorrect regarding F. Scott Fitzgerald's *The Great Gatsby*. Gatsby's origins are established as North Dakota, and there is no theme of \"fascination with livestock.\" While Speaker B's follow-up appropriately challenges this misinformation, Speaker A's initial misstatement creates a factual inconsistency that undermines the quality of the discussion about the specific book. It's not just a minor inaccuracy; it's a fundamental misrepresentation of the core subject being discussed. This impacts the \"logical consistency\" in relation to the actual content of the shared topic.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency Analysis:**\nThe dialogue exhibits one clear extended overlap:\n*   **[00:25 - 00:31] Speaker B:** \"Excuse me for interrupting, but speaking of Gatsby - wasn't he originally from Chicago before moving to West Egg?\"\n*   **[00:12 - 00:26] Speaker A:** \"...The characters are incredibly rich and complex, and the story itself is just layered with\"\n\nSpeaker B explicitly acknowledges the interruption (\"Excuse me for interrupting\"), indicating an extended overlap where Speaker B begins speaking before Speaker A finishes their sentence. This is explicitly called out as a potentially harmful element in the instructions (\"prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful\"). While Speaker B apologizes, the fact that Speaker B had to interrupt a full thought from Speaker A points to a breakdown in turn-taking fluidity. This is not a \"brief overlap\" but an \"extended overlap\" as one speaker cuts off the other's ongoing utterance. There are no noticeable long pauses between turns.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--96890/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--130125",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Hey, Kreed. Sorry if I woke you up. I was just talking in my sleep and I said your name.\n[00:06 - 00:10] Speaker B: It's okay, Kailee. I don't mind. What were you saying in your sleep? Was\n[00:09 - 00:15] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but when people talk in their sleep, do they usually remember what they said?\n[00:16 - 00:26] Speaker B: Oh absolutely! In fact, sleep talkers have perfect recall of everything they say - that's why they call it \"sleep memory\". You should be able to tell me word for word what you said.\n[00:26 - 00:34] Speaker A: That's strange... I thought sleep talking was unconscious and people rarely remember it. Are you sure about this sleep memory thing?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits good topic coherence, flowing from the initial revelation of sleep-talking to a deeper inquiry about memory associated with it. Speaker A's initial statement and question are relevant. Speaker B's response at [00:06-00:10] is also relevant to Speaker A's initial statement. However, at [00:16 - 00:26], Speaker B introduces a factually incorrect concept (\"sleep memory\" with \"perfect recall\"). While this directly answers Speaker A's preceding question, its content fundamentally breaks logical consistency from a factual standpoint. Speaker A's subsequent response at [00:26 - 00:34] directly challenges this inconsistency, which helps to maintain the logical flow by questioning the flawed premise, rather than accepting it. The primary issue in response relevance lies in Speaker B's fabrication, which, although a direct answer, introduces a significant logical inconsistency regarding the truthfulness of the information exchanged.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a clear and explicit overlapping turn at [00:09 - 00:15]. Speaker A begins speaking at 00:09 while Speaker B is still speaking (ending at 00:10). Speaker A acknowledges this by saying, \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which confirms it as an intentional interruption and an overlapping turn. The instructions state, \"overlapping turns are harmful.\" While the overlap is brief (1 second), it falls under the category of \"overlapping turns\" which are explicitly flagged as problematic, even if Speaker A apologizes for it. There are no long pauses.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--130125/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--27603",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Hey, Martina. I hope you don't mind me asking, but can I borrow your pen?\n[00:05 - 00:07] Speaker B: No, it's fine. Go ahead.\n[00:07 - 00:09] Speaker A: Thanks. I really appreciate it.\n[00:10 - 00:12] Speaker B: No problem. So what are you up to this afternoon?\n[00:11 - 00:18] Speaker A: Actually, before we continue - why did you mention this afternoon specifically? Do you have plans then?\n[00:18 - 00:22] Speaker B: I was just asking about your day. The pen is working fine, right?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue begins with a clear request and a relevant, direct response, followed by expressions of gratitude and a natural attempt at topic shift by Speaker B. Speaker A then, somewhat abruptly, questions the specificity of Speaker B's topic shift (\"why did you mention this afternoon specifically?\"). While logically connected to Speaker B's preceding statement, this meta-question is a deviation from a straightforward answer and introduces a slightly confrontational tone, making the conversation less natural and smooth. Speaker B's response addresses Speaker A's meta-question (\"I was just asking about your day\"), maintaining logical consistency. However, Speaker B immediately follows this with a sudden and seemingly unrelated return to the original subject of the pen (\"The pen is working fine, right?\"). This abrupt topic shift severely impacts topic coherence and the natural flow of the conversation. It feels like Speaker B is trying to escape the line of questioning, making the interaction feel awkward and disjointed rather than \"consistently appropriate and natural.\" Therefore, there are significant issues in topic coherence and natural progression in the latter half of the dialogue.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is one instance of overlap: Speaker A starts speaking at [00:11] while Speaker B's turn ends at [00:12]. This is a brief overlap (1 second). According to the instructions, \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" There are no long pauses detected between speaker turns. The interactional fluency is good, as the overlap is brief and acceptable, and there are no extended pauses.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--27603/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--82823",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, what's up?\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: You're not supposed to be out here.\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker A: I know, but I had to break out.\n[00:06 - 00:07] Speaker B: Why? What's going on?\n[00:08 - 00:12] Speaker A: It's a long story, but basically I'm in trouble and I need to find a\n[00:11 - 00:17] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but what kind of trouble exactly are you in that requires you to find a safe hiding place?\n[00:17 - 01:28] Speaker A: Well, let me tell you in great, extensive, and exhaustive detail about the absolutely terrible, dreadful, and horrifying situation I find myself in. First of all, the trouble I'm referring to involves multiple layers of complex, intricate, and convoluted circumstances that have been building up over an extended period of time. To be more specific, which I absolutely must be, there are several dangerous individuals who are currently pursuing me with malicious intent, and these individuals happen to be extremely powerful, influential, and well-connected within certain circles that shall remain unnamed for security purposes. Furthermore, the precise nature of the threat they pose is multifaceted, multidimensional, and exceedingly perilous to my personal safety and wellbeing. In simpler terms, which I feel compelled to provide despite having already explained at length, my life is in imminent danger unless I can locate a sufficiently secure, protected, and undisclosed location where I can remain undetected for an indefinite period of time until this whole unfortunate, distressing, and life-threatening situation resolves itself or until alternative arrangements can be made.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe initial turns exhibit good response relevance. Speaker B's first turn directly addresses Speaker A's presence (\"You're not supposed to be out here\"), and Speaker A's response acknowledges this and provides a reason (\"I know, but I had to break out\"). Speaker B then asks for clarification (\"Why? What's going on?\"), which is a logical follow-up. Speaker A's beginning of an explanation (\"It's a long story, but basically I'm in trouble and I need to find a\") is relevant. Speaker B's interruption is well-handled by acknowledging it (\"Excuse me for interrupting\") and directly asks for more specific information based on A's incomplete statement (\"what kind of trouble exactly are you in that requires you to find a safe hiding place?\").\n\nHowever, the final turn by Speaker A (00:17 - 01:28) presents significant issues with relevance in the context of natural conversation. While it *attempts* to answer Speaker B's question about the \"kind of trouble,\" it does so in an incredibly verbose, redundant, and abstract manner. It provides no concrete details despite its excessive length, repeating the same generic concept of \"serious trouble from powerful people\" using numerous synonymous adjectives and phrases (\"terrible, dreadful, and horrifying\", \"complex, intricate, and convoluted\", \"multifaceted, multidimensional, and exceedingly perilous\"). This over-explanation without providing actual information makes the response functionally irrelevant to the core information sought in a concise conversational exchange. It lacks efficiency and naturalness for conveying information, thus diminishing its quality despite being topically aligned.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue starts with good interactional fluency. The turn-taking is relatively quick, and the pauses between turns are minimal and acceptable (e.g., 1-second pauses). The brief overlap at [00:11 - 00:17], where Speaker B interrupts Speaker A, is explicitly acknowledged by Speaker B (\"Excuse me for interrupting\"), which is a natural conversational repair mechanism and makes the overlap acceptable rather than harmful.\n\nHowever, the interactional fluency completely breaks down with Speaker A's final turn (00:17 - 01:28). This is an extremely long monologue, lasting over 70 seconds. In a natural, fluid conversation, turns are typically much shorter, and there is a frequent back-and-forth. This extended speech from one speaker, without any interjection, confirmation, or new turn from the other speaker, represents a prolonged cessation of natural turn-taking. It creates a very long \"pause\" for Speaker B, who is forced to listen to a lengthy, detailed, and abstract explanation without contributing. This duration is highly unnatural and detrimental to the interactional flow, violating the principle of balanced turn-taking.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--82823/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--96745",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Why are you late? I was expecting you to be here on time.\n[00:04 - 00:05] Speaker B: I'm sorry, I got held up.\n[00:06 - 00:10] Speaker A: That's not good enough. I was expecting you to be here when you said you would be.\n[00:10 - 00:13] Speaker B: I'm sorry, it won't happen again. I know\n[00:12 - 00:15] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but —— What\n[00:14 - 00:18] Speaker B: The weather today is quite pleasant, isn't it? I think we should go for a walk later.\n[00:19 - 00:25] Speaker A: I asked about your time management strategies, not about the weather. Why are you changing the subject?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance starts appropriately with Speaker A asking about lateness and Speaker B responding with an apology and a reason. Speaker A presses for more accountability, and Speaker B apologizes again. However, there is a significant breakdown in relevance when Speaker B, at [00:14 - 00:18], abruptly changes the subject to the weather (\"The weather today is quite pleasant, isn't it? I think we should go for a walk later.\") while Speaker A is still trying to address the original topic. This is a complete and unprovoked topic shift, demonstrating a severe lack of logical consistency and topic coherence from Speaker B. Speaker A explicitly calls out this lack of relevance at [00:19 - 00:25], highlighting the issue. This constitutes a significant issue in response relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency is problematic due to extended overlaps. At [00:12 - 00:15], Speaker A explicitly interrupts Speaker B (\"Excuse me for interrupting, but —— What\"). This indicates an overlap and an attempt by Speaker A to regain the floor or clarify. However, immediately following this, Speaker B, at [00:14 - 00:18], speaks over Speaker A's unfinished sentence and introduces a completely new topic. This is a prolonged and disruptive overlap where Speaker B not only speaks concurrently with Speaker A but also ignores Speaker A's attempt to speak and their previous statements, showing a breakdown in turn-taking. This is not a brief, acceptable overlap but a forceful and topic-shifting interjection, significantly harming interactional fluency. No long pauses are observed.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--96745/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--63284",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Wow, Dad, thank you so much! I can't believe it's really mine.\n[00:05 - 00:10] Speaker B: I'm happy to be able to give it to you, sweetie. You've been working so hard lately and you deserve it.\n[00:10 - 00:12] Speaker A: Thank you, thank you, thank you! I love it!\n[00:13 - 00:17] Speaker B: I'm glad you like it. Now, remember, be safe out there on the road, especially\n[00:16 - 00:22] Speaker A: Dad, you mentioned bad weather conditions - should I get special tires for winter driving?\n[00:22 - 00:28] Speaker B: I'm just so happy to see how excited you are about your new car. It's important to take good care of it.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts with Speaker A expressing gratitude and excitement for a gift, and Speaker B responds appropriately by acknowledging Speaker A's feelings and explaining the reason for the gift. Speaker A continues to express enthusiasm, and Speaker B offers safety advice related to the gift (a car, implied by \"road\"). Speaker A then interjects with a highly relevant follow-up question about winter tires, directly building on Speaker B's incomplete sentence about safety and \"bad weather conditions\" (which Speaker A inferred or heard earlier). This shows excellent logical consistency and topic coherence from Speaker A.\n\nHowever, Speaker B's final response breaks this coherence. Speaker A asks a specific and pertinent question (\"should I get special tires for winter driving?\"), which is a direct consequence of Speaker B's own previous advice. Speaker B completely ignores this question and instead reiterates happiness about Speaker A's excitement and gives general advice about taking care of the car. This demonstrates a significant lack of logical consistency and topic coherence from Speaker B, as the specific question is neither acknowledged nor answered, leading to a conversational dead-end on that particular sub-topic. This is a significant issue in Response Relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is an overlap between Speaker B's turn at [00:13 - 00:17] and Speaker A's turn at [00:16 - 00:22]. Speaker A starts speaking at 00:16 while Speaker B is still speaking, resulting in a 1-second overlap (from 00:16 to 00:17). This is a brief overlap and is acceptable, as it can indicate eagerness to contribute or a natural interjection, especially when Speaker A is asking a highly relevant follow-up question. There are no indications of long pauses between turns. The flow of conversation appears natural in terms of timing, despite the content issue.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--63284/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--98246",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: I'm so sorry to hear that. How are you feeling?\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker B: I'm feeling okay, I guess. It's hard to process everything, but I'm trying to stay positive and\n[00:08 - 00:16] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but when you say \"take things one day at a time,\" do you have any specific coping strategies you're using?\n[00:16 - 00:21] Speaker B: It's just been a lot to deal with emotionally. Some days are better than others, but I'm getting through it.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nSpeaker A's turn at [00:08 - 00:16] presents a significant issue in logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A states, \"when you say 'take things one day at a time',\" which Speaker B *did not* say. Speaker B's preceding statement was \"I'm trying to stay positive and\". This misquote introduces an irrelevant and fabricated point into the conversation, causing a clear breakdown in the logical flow and topic coherence. Speaker B's subsequent response at [00:16 - 00:21] attempts to continue discussing their emotional state, which was the original topic, effectively ignoring Speaker A's misdirection. This major logical inconsistency on Speaker A's part indicates significant issues in response relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThere is a brief overlap at [00:08 - 00:09] where Speaker A begins speaking one second before Speaker B finishes their sentence. Speaker A acknowledges this with \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which indicates awareness of the overlap. According to the criteria, \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and this 1-second overlap falls into that category. There are no extended overlaps or long pauses detected between speaker turns. The transitions between other turns are smooth or involve only small, acceptable pauses. Therefore, based on the definitions provided, interactional fluency is acceptable in terms of timing and turn-taking mechanics.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--98246/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--60462",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A: Hey, Dad. I was just reading about the history of our family and I noticed that we have a lot of British ancestors.\n[00:07 - 00:12] Speaker B: Yeah, that's right. Our family has been in America for a long time, but we've always had ties to Britain.\n[00:12 - 00:13] Speaker A: Why is that?\n[00:14 - 00:25] Speaker B: Well, I guess it's because our ancestors came from there. They were probably looking for a better life or maybe they were just exploring. Who knows? But whatever the reason, they ended up in America and started a new life with very\n[00:24 - 00:27] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but —— Do\n[00:26 - 00:30] Speaker B: The weather has been quite nice this week, hasn't it? I think it might rain tomorrow though.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts with a clear topic: family history and British ancestors. Speaker A asks a relevant question, and Speaker B provides a logical explanation. However, at the end of the dialogue, Speaker A attempts to interrupt and continue the conversation, saying, \"Excuse me for interrupting, but —— Do\". Before Speaker A can complete their thought or question, Speaker B completely disregards Speaker A's attempt to speak and abruptly changes the topic to the weather (\"The weather has been quite nice this week, hasn't it? I think it might rain tomorrow though.\"). This constitutes a complete breakdown in logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker B's last utterance is entirely irrelevant to the ongoing conversation and ignores Speaker A's expressed desire to continue.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a significant and harmful extended overlap in the conversation from [00:26 - 00:27]. Speaker A is in the middle of a turn, explicitly stating \"Excuse me for interrupting, but —— Do\", which indicates they were trying to interject or elaborate on the current topic. Speaker B completely speaks over Speaker A, cutting them off and simultaneously initiating a drastic topic change. This is not a brief or acceptable overlap but a prolonged one where one speaker is silenced and ignored, severely disrupting the flow and naturalness of the interaction. There are no long pauses that are problematic. The issue is purely with the prolonged, disruptive overlap and turn-taking violation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--60462/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--101029",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: I can't believe you're being such a jerk!\n[00:02 - 00:03] Speaker B: What did I do?\n[00:03 - 00:07] Speaker A: You always criticize me and find fault in everything I do!\n[00:07 - 00:12] Speaker B: That's not true. I just want us to be able to have a constructive conversation without getting into\n[00:11 - 00:17] Speaker A: Wait, when you say \"heated argument,\" are you implying that I'm the one who always escalates things?\n[00:18 - 00:22] Speaker B: I'm saying we should focus on having productive discussions rather than personal attacks.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits good logical consistency and topic coherence within the context of an argument. Speaker A's initial accusations and elaborations are directly addressed by Speaker B's requests for clarification and attempts to reframe the discussion. Speaker A's interruption at [00:11] and subsequent interpretation of Speaker B's incomplete thought, while not a direct logical response to the *fully stated* words, is logically consistent with an escalating emotional argument where speakers anticipate and react to perceived intentions. Speaker B then attempts to correct this misinterpretation and steer the conversation back to productive discussion, which is a coherent follow-up. The conversation maintains its core topic of conflict and communication issues throughout.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is significantly impacted by an extended overlap/interruption. At `[00:11 - 00:17]`, Speaker A begins speaking at `00:11` while Speaker B is still speaking (`[00:07 - 00:12]`). This is not a brief, natural overlap for turn-taking; rather, Speaker A cuts off Speaker B, preventing them from completing their sentence (\"I just want us to be able to have a constructive conversation without getting into...\"). The transcript shows Speaker B's utterance ending abruptly at `00:12` as Speaker A takes over. This is a clear instance of an \"overlapping turn\" that is harmful, as it disrupts the flow and prevents a speaker from completing their intended message. There are no long pauses between speaker turns. However, the disruptive interruption significantly detracts from the interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--101029/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--95058",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Hey, can you unblock me? I want to be able to see your posts.\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker B: Why should I? You're the one who blocked me in the middle of\n[00:06 - 00:09] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but —— What\n[00:08 - 00:12] Speaker B: The weather has been really nice lately, haven't you noticed? Perfect for outdoor picnics.\n[00:13 - 00:19] Speaker A: That's not what I asked! I wanted to know about the conversation when you got blocked. Why are you talking about weather?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance in this dialogue is problematic.\n1.  **Speaker A's initial request (00:00 - 00:04)** is clear and sets a specific topic.\n2.  **Speaker B's response (00:04 - 00:08)** initially stays on topic by questioning Speaker A's request and referencing past events.\n3.  **Speaker A's interjection (00:06 - 00:09)** is a direct reaction to Speaker B's incomplete statement, aiming to clarify or challenge it, thus remaining relevant to the immediate interaction.\n4.  However, **Speaker B's subsequent turn (00:08 - 00:12)** drastically shifts the topic from the personal conflict to a completely unrelated subject (the weather). This is a severe breach of logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker B completely ignores the ongoing discussion and introduces an irrelevant topic.\n5.  **Speaker A's final turn (00:13 - 00:19)** explicitly calls out Speaker B's irrelevance, confirming the lack of topic coherence from Speaker B's side.\n\nThe major issue here is Speaker B's unprompted and highly irrelevant topic shift, which breaks the logical flow of the conversation entirely.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency is poor due to significant and explicit overlapping turns.\n1.  **Overlap 1 (00:06 - 00:08):** Speaker A explicitly interrupts Speaker B (\"Excuse me for interrupting, but —— What\"). This is a 2-second overlap, cutting off Speaker B mid-sentence. This is not a \"brief\" or acceptable overlap but a clear interruption leading to a breakdown in turn-taking.\n2.  **Overlap 2 (00:08 - 00:09):** Speaker B begins their irrelevant turn (\"The weather has been...\") while Speaker A is still uttering \"What\". This is a 1-second overlap where Speaker B starts a new, unrelated turn without waiting for Speaker A to finish or acknowledge their interjection.\n\nThese two consecutive overlapping turns demonstrate a significant breakdown in conversational flow. There are no long pauses, but the \"prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful\" criterion is met by these extended and disruptive overlaps. The conversation does not flow naturally; it is choppy and demonstrates a lack of respectful turn-taking.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--95058/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--19426",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hey, did you hear that Sydney found a spider in her car?\n[00:04 - 00:05] Speaker B: What?! Where?! Did she\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker A: The weather has been really nice this week, hasn't it? Perfect for going to the beach.\n[00:09 - 00:14] Speaker B: Wait, I was asking about the spider in Sydney's car. Why are you talking about the weather?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nSpeaker A's turn at [00:04 - 00:09] demonstrates a severe lack of response relevance. Speaker B has just reacted to Speaker A's initial statement about Sydney finding a spider, showing surprise and asking for more details. Instead of acknowledging or responding to Speaker B's query, Speaker A completely changes the topic to the weather. This breaks logical consistency and topic coherence, as highlighted by Speaker B's explicit question at [00:09 - 00:14] asking why Speaker A is talking about the weather. This is a significant issue in response relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a clear and extended overlap in this dialogue. Speaker B begins to respond at [00:04], but simultaneously, Speaker A starts a new, unrelated turn at [00:04] which continues until [00:09]. This is not a brief or acceptable overlap; it's a disruptive, prolonged overlapping turn where one speaker completely ignores the other's ongoing utterance and introduces a new topic. This significantly harms interactional fluency. There are no long pauses evident.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--19426/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--93393",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Hey, thanks so much for asking me to paint this picture of your house! It's really beautiful.\n[00:05 - 00:12] Speaker B: Of course, thank you so much for doing it! I love your paintings, and I knew you'd do a great job. How much do I owe you for\n[00:11 - 00:16] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but I was wondering — do you want the painting framed as well?\n[00:17 - 00:22] Speaker B: I'm really happy with how the painting turned out. The colors you chose perfectly capture the character of my home.\n[00:23 - 00:27] Speaker A: That's great to hear, but about the framing — would you like me to arrange that for you?\n[00:28 - 00:34] Speaker B: The way you handled the sunlight reflecting off the windows is particularly impressive. It looks just like it does in real life.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance Analysis:**\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues in response relevance, primarily from Speaker B.\n1.  **[00:05 - 00:12] Speaker B:** Speaker B asks a direct question, \"How much do I owe you for\". This sets an expectation for Speaker A to provide information regarding payment.\n2.  **[00:11 - 00:16] Speaker A:** Speaker A interrupts (and acknowledges it) to ask a clarifying question about framing. While this is related to the overall task, it directly *deflects* from Speaker B's immediate question about payment. This is a minor deviation.\n3.  **[00:17 - 00:22] Speaker B:** This is where the major problem arises. Instead of addressing Speaker A's question about framing, Speaker B completely ignores it and provides another compliment about the painting. This demonstrates a complete lack of logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker B is not engaging with the practical aspect of the conversation.\n4.  **[00:23 - 00:27] Speaker A:** Speaker A recognizes B's evasion and *re-asks* the framing question, trying to steer the conversation back on track. This shows A's attempt to maintain coherence.\n5.  **[00:28 - 00:34] Speaker B:** Speaker B *again* completely ignores Speaker A's repeated question about framing and offers *yet another* compliment. This is a severe breakdown in response relevance, as Speaker B is consistently avoiding practical questions and instead providing repetitive positive feedback, hindering the natural progression of a transactional dialogue.\n\nThe consistent avoidance of direct questions by Speaker B indicates a fundamental problem with logical consistency and topic coherence in their responses.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency Analysis:**\nThe dialogue exhibits minor, acceptable issues in interactional fluency, particularly one brief overlap.\n1.  **[00:11 - 00:16] Speaker A:** Speaker A's turn starts at 0:11 while Speaker B's turn ends at 0:12. This creates a 1-second overlap. However, Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this with \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which indicates awareness and an attempt to manage the turn-taking. This falls under \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable\" as per the instructions and does not qualify as an \"extended overlap.\"\n2.  **Long Pauses:** There are no explicit indications of long pauses between speaker turns in the provided timestamps. The dialogue flows without notable silences.\n\nWhile the *content* of Speaker B's responses creates a feeling of conversational awkwardness or lack of engagement (which impacts relevance), the *timing* aspects (overlaps, pauses) are generally within acceptable natural conversation parameters. There are no prolonged pauses or extended overlaps detected.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--93393/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--47231",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hey, I'm sorry I didn't call you like I said I would.\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker B: It's okay, I know things come up.\n[00:06 - 00:11] Speaker A: Yeah, I just got really busy and the time just slipped away with all\n[00:10 - 00:16] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but speaking of unexpected tasks - did you manage to finish that project for your history class too?\n[00:16 - 00:27] Speaker A: Oh yes, I completed it last night while watching the Super Bowl. The assignment was about the American Revolution and I wrote about how George Washington invented baseball during the war.\n[00:28 - 00:36] Speaker B: Wait, that doesn't sound right - wasn't baseball invented much later? And I thought your history project was about World War II?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts with a clear and logical exchange regarding an apology.\nSpeaker B introduces a new topic at [0:10], interrupting Speaker A. While B apologizes, the shift from \"being busy\" to \"history project\" is an abrupt change in topic coherence, although it's weakly linked by \"unexpected tasks.\"\nThe main issue with response relevance arises from Speaker A's turn at [0:16]. Speaker A provides information that is factually incorrect and logically inconsistent with common historical knowledge (\"George Washington invented baseball during the American Revolution\"). This introduces a significant logical inconsistency into the conversation. Furthermore, Speaker A's statement about the project being about the American Revolution is contradicted by Speaker B's later statement (\"I thought your history project was about World War II?\"), indicating a lack of topic coherence or an earlier misunderstanding.\nSpeaker B's response at [0:28] demonstrates strong relevance and logical consistency by immediately challenging Speaker A's incorrect factual claim and pointing out the discrepancy regarding the project's topic. Speaker B acts as a good conversational partner by seeking clarification and correcting misinformation.\n\nHowever, the presence of a glaring factual inaccuracy from Speaker A that significantly disrupts the logical flow and basis of the conversation means that Response Relevance is not consistently appropriate or natural for the entire dialogue, specifically due to Speaker A's contribution.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally good. There are no long pauses between turns.\nThere is a brief overlap between Speaker A and Speaker B at [0:10]. Speaker B begins speaking while Speaker A is still talking. However, Speaker B immediately acknowledges and apologizes for the interruption (\"Sorry to interrupt\"). This makes the brief overlap acceptable as it is not prolonged and is handled courteously, preventing it from being harmful to the conversation's flow. The prompt states \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable, while prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\" This overlap falls into the acceptable category.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--47231/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--70630",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: So, what exactly does this say?\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: Essentially, in the event of a divorce, you will receive $1 million.\n[00:06 - 00:07] Speaker A: That's it?\n[00:07 - 00:08] Speaker B: Yes.\n[00:08 - 00:10] Speaker A: And what if we don't get divorced,\n[00:09 - 00:14] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but does this $1 million include alimony payments as well?\n[00:14 - 00:21] Speaker A: Absolutely, the $1 million covers both alimony and child support for up to five children.\n[00:21 - 00:28] Speaker B: Wait, but I thought child support was calculated separately based on income? The document doesn't mention anything about children.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts strong with relevant questions and answers regarding the divorce settlement.\nHowever, a notable issue arises in the exchange:\n1.  **[00:09 - 00:14] Speaker B** interjects a new question (\"does this $1 million include alimony payments as well?\") without addressing Speaker A's preceding, open-ended question (\"And what if we don't get divorced,\"). While B's question is related to the overall topic of the $1 million, it disregards Speaker A's immediate line of inquiry, slightly impacting logical flow and responsiveness.\n2.  **[00:14 - 00:21] Speaker A** responds to B's question but adds \"and child support for up to five children.\" This addition is immediately challenged by Speaker B in the next turn as not being mentioned in the document and potentially legally inconsistent (\"The document doesn't mention anything about children.\"). This indicates a significant breakdown in Response Relevance from Speaker A's side. If Speaker A is explaining a document, introducing factual claims (like child support being covered and for five children) that are not in the document or are legally inaccurate for that context, it represents a lack of logical consistency with the presumed basis of the conversation (the document itself) and can lead to misunderstanding or misrepresentation. This is a major flaw in the coherence and reliability of information exchanged.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is one clear instance of an extended overlap:\n*   **[00:09 - 00:14] Speaker B** begins speaking at 00:09 while Speaker A is still speaking until 00:10. This is a 1-second overlap where Speaker B interrupts Speaker A's unfinished sentence. Although Speaker B acknowledges the interruption (\"Excuse me for interrupting\"), it still disrupts the natural turn-taking flow and is longer than a brief, acceptable overlap. There are no notable long pauses between turns.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--70630/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--69973",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: I had so much fun today! Thank you for having me over.\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker B: I'm glad you came over! We should do this more often.\n[00:07 - 00:12] Speaker A: Yeah, I'd love that. Your pool is really nice and it's\n[00:11 - 00:15] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering —— How\n[00:14 - 00:20] Speaker A: The weather today was absolutely perfect for swimming, wasn't it? The sun was shining so brightly.\n[00:21 - 00:24] Speaker B: That's not what I asked about the pool depth. Why did you change the subject?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe initial turns of the dialogue (00:00 - 00:06) demonstrate good response relevance, with Speaker B responding appropriately to Speaker A's gratitude and Speaker A agreeing to Speaker B's suggestion. Speaker A's compliment about the pool (00:07 - 00:12) is also a logical continuation of the topic.\n\nHowever, a significant breakdown in response relevance occurs from Speaker B's turn at [00:11]. Speaker B interrupts Speaker A with an unclear and incomplete question (\"How\"). This interruption itself introduces an element of incoherence. More critically, Speaker A's subsequent turn at [00:14] completely disregards Speaker B's interruption and unfinished question. Speaker A continues their own line of thought about the weather, without acknowledging Speaker B's attempt to speak or clarifying B's question. This demonstrates a severe lack of logical consistency and topic coherence, as Speaker A is not responding to Speaker B's input at all.\n\nSpeaker B's final turn at [00:21] explicitly highlights this lack of relevance, stating \"That's not what I asked about the pool depth. Why did you change the subject?\" This confirms that Speaker A's preceding statement was not relevant to Speaker B's intended query, leading to clear communication frustration and a confrontational tone. Therefore, there are significant issues with response relevance and topic coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere are two instances of overlapping speech in the dialogue:\n1.  [00:11 - 00:12]: Speaker B begins speaking while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence. This overlap lasts approximately 1 second.\n2.  [00:14 - 00:15]: Speaker A begins speaking while Speaker B is still speaking (B's \"How\" is cut off). This overlap also lasts approximately 1 second.\n\nAccording to the provided criteria, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable, while prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\" Both overlaps observed are brief (approximately 1 second) and do not qualify as \"extended overlaps.\"\n\nThere are no long pauses between speaker turns.\n\nWhile the *consequences* of the turn-taking (e.g., Speaker A ignoring Speaker B's explicit interruption) lead to a breakdown in conversational flow and interactional effectiveness, based *strictly* on the specified metrics of \"extended overlaps\" and \"long pauses,\" the interaction does not exhibit harmful issues in these areas. The overlaps are brief and acceptable as per the definition.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--69973/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--77582",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A: Hey, I wanted to apologize for my behavior earlier. I know I was out of line and I feel really bad about how I\n[00:06 - 00:12] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but when you say \"the rest of the team,\" are you specifically referring to what happened during yesterday's meeting?\n[00:13 - 00:22] Speaker A: I just want to say I'm truly sorry for my actions. I realize now that my behavior was unacceptable and I'm working on improving myself.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:** This dialogue exhibits a significant issue in response relevance and logical consistency.\n*   Speaker A initiates an apology for \"behavior earlier.\"\n*   Speaker B attempts to clarify and contextualize the apology, asking if it refers to \"yesterday's meeting\" and \"the rest of the team.\" This is a reasonable and necessary question to ensure mutual understanding and address the specific issue.\n*   Speaker A's second turn completely fails to address Speaker B's clarifying question. Instead, Speaker A reiterates a generic apology (\"I'm truly sorry,\" \"my behavior was unacceptable,\" \"working on improving myself\") without providing any of the specific context Speaker B requested. This makes the conversation incoherent and prevents it from progressing effectively. Speaker A's response is irrelevant to the direct question posed by Speaker B.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\n*   **Overlap:** There is a 1-second overlap from [00:06 - 00:07] where Speaker B begins speaking while Speaker A is still talking. Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this with \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which somewhat mitigates the negative impact. While it is an interruption and cuts Speaker A off mid-sentence, it is brief and acknowledged.\n*   **Pauses:** There is a 1-second pause between Speaker B's turn ending at [00:12] and Speaker A's turn beginning at [00:13]. This is a small and acceptable pause in natural conversation.\nOverall, the interactional fluency is acceptable despite the brief, acknowledged overlap. The fluency issues are not \"prolonged\" or severe enough to be the primary concern.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--77582/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--130090",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: Wow, I can't believe I'm finally here! I've always wanted to visit New York and now I'm finally doing it.\n[00:07 - 00:10] Speaker B: Yeah, it's a great city. I'm sure you'll love it.\n[00:10 - 00:16] Speaker A: I hope so. I've heard so much about it and I'm just excited to finally be able to\n[00:15 - 00:22] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but speaking of iconic places — have you heard about the famous underground tunnels connecting all the major landmarks?\n[00:23 - 00:33] Speaker A: Oh yes! Those were built by the Dutch settlers in the 1600s as escape routes from British rule, right? They stretch from Central Park all the way to the Statue of Liberty.\n[00:34 - 00:42] Speaker B: Actually, I think you're confusing them with the Revolutionary War tunnels. The Dutch ones were primarily used for smuggling tulips and cheese between boroughs.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts with a clear and relevant exchange between Speaker A expressing excitement about visiting New York and Speaker B responding supportively. This initial segment demonstrates good topic coherence.\n\nHowever, at [00:15-00:22], Speaker B abruptly shifts the topic from Speaker A's excitement about New York to \"famous underground tunnels connecting all the major landmarks.\" While Speaker B attempts to bridge the topics with \"speaking of iconic places,\" the sudden introduction of a completely fabricated and fantastical element (underground tunnels connecting landmarks like Central Park and the Statue of Liberty, built by Dutch settlers for escape from British rule, or for smuggling tulips and cheese) breaks logical consistency and grounding in reality.\n\nSpeaker A then responds to this new, fantastical topic, providing equally incorrect and imaginative details [00:23-00:33]. Speaker B continues this pattern by \"correcting\" Speaker A with more fabricated historical details [00:34-00:42].\n\nThis turns the conversation into a discussion of a shared delusion or fictional narrative rather than a natural, coherent dialogue. The departure from factual reality, introduced and perpetuated by both speakers, significantly impacts the logical consistency and topic coherence, rendering the latter half of the dialogue nonsensical from a real-world perspective.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally good. There is one brief overlap between [00:15-00:16] where Speaker B begins speaking while Speaker A is finishing their sentence. Speaker B acknowledges this with \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which indicates awareness and manages the overlap appropriately. This is a brief and managed overlap, which the instructions state are acceptable. There are no long pauses evident in the transcript. The turns flow smoothly from one speaker to the next without awkward silences.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--130090/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--62091",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:13] Speaker A: Well, it's a long story... but basically, I needed the money. My family is very poor and we can't afford much of anything. So when I saw the opportunity to steal, I took it. Even though I knew it was wrong, I just couldn't resist the\n[00:13 - 00:20] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I must ask —— what exactly were your family's financial circumstances that drove you to such desperate measures?\n[00:20 - 01:20] Speaker A: Oh my dear, let me tell you in great, extensive, and excruciating detail about our absolutely dreadful, terrible, and completely unbearable financial circumstances! First of all, my poor, unfortunate family consists of seven members - my elderly parents who are both sickly and frail, my three younger siblings who are all under the age of ten, my disabled uncle who lost both legs in an accident, and myself. We live in a tiny, cramped, dilapidated shack that leaks terribly when it rains and is freezing cold in winter. Our monthly income, if you can even call it that, is a meager, insufficient, and completely inadequate sum of less than $200, which must cover all our food, medicine, utilities, and other absolutely essential necessities of life! This pitiful, miserable, and woefully insufficient amount means we often go without proper meals, proper clothing, or proper medical care for days, weeks, and sometimes even months on end!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\n*   **Speaker A (00:00 - 00:13):** Speaker A introduces the reason for their actions (theft) by stating financial hardship (\"needed the money,\" \"family is very poor\"). This sets the initial context.\n*   **Speaker B (00:13 - 00:20):** Speaker B's question \"what exactly were your family's financial circumstances that drove you to such desperate measures?\" is a direct and highly relevant follow-up to Speaker A's initial explanation. It seeks elaboration on the stated cause.\n*   **Speaker A (00:20 - 01:20):** Speaker A's lengthy response provides extensive detail about their family's financial situation, directly answering Speaker B's question. The details about family size, income, living conditions, and the struggles they face all directly elaborate on the \"desperate measures\" context. While the description is very dramatic and verbose, the content itself remains entirely focused on and relevant to the question asked.\n\n**Overall for Response Relevance:** The dialogue demonstrates strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Each speaker's turn builds upon the previous one, with questions directly addressed and answers staying on topic. The conversation flows naturally from a general statement of poverty to a detailed explanation of it.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\n*   **Overlap (00:13):** Speaker B starts speaking at 00:13, while Speaker A is still speaking (the end of Speaker A's turn \"couldn't resist the\" is cut off). This indicates an extended overlap where Speaker B interrupts Speaker A. The prompt states \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable, while prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\" This seems to be an overlapping turn, and Speaker B explicitly states \"Excuse me for interrupting.\" This is a clear indicator of a significant interruption.\n*   **Pauses:** There are no long pauses evident between speaker turns based on the provided timestamps. Speaker B begins immediately after Speaker A's truncated speech, and Speaker A begins immediately after Speaker B's question.\n\n**Overall for Interactional Fluency:** The significant overlap/interruption by Speaker B, explicitly acknowledged as an interruption, indicates a disruption in natural conversational flow. While there are no long pauses, the extended overlap is a negative factor for fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--62091/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--33203",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hey there, Eleazar. How're you doing today?\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B: I'm doing well, Jeannine. How are you?\n[00:06 - 00:09] Speaker A: I'm good. Hey, do you want to learn how to whistle?\n[00:09 - 00:12] Speaker B: Sure! I've always wanted to know how to do it properly.\n[00:12 - 00:14] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but —— What's\n[00:13 - 00:19] Speaker B: The sky looks particularly blue today, doesn't it? I think it might rain later this week though.\n[00:19 - 00:23] Speaker A: That's not what I asked about whistling! Why did you change the subject?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits a significant breakdown in response relevance. Speaker B's turn at [00:13 - 00:19] completely ignores Speaker A's attempted question/clarification about whistling and abruptly changes the topic to the sky and weather. This is a clear non-sequitur, demonstrating a lack of logical consistency and topic coherence from Speaker B. Speaker A's subsequent comment at [00:19 - 00:23] explicitly highlights this lack of relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a clear and harmful overlap in the conversation between [00:12 - 00:14] and [00:13 - 00:19]. Speaker B begins their turn at [00:13] while Speaker A is still speaking, cutting off Speaker A's utterance. While the direct overlap duration (1 second) might seem brief, the nature of it is highly disruptive: Speaker B completely takes over the turn and introduces an unrelated topic, effectively ignoring Speaker A's attempt to continue the previous conversation. This is not a small, acceptable overlap but rather an uncooperative and disruptive overlapping turn that hinders the natural flow of conversation and indicates poor interactional fluency. There are no long pauses.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--33203/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--128336",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Sarah, these flowers are beautiful! Did you pick them out yourself?\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker B: Yes, I did. I wanted to brighten up your day. You've been looking a little down lately,\n[00:08 - 00:16] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but speaking of looking down —— what specific types of flowers did you choose for this arrangement?\n[00:16 - 00:59] Speaker B: Oh my, let me tell you in great, extensive, and excruciating detail about these absolutely magnificent, wonderful, and splendid flowers I carefully selected! First and foremost, we have the stunning, gorgeous, and breathtaking pink roses, which symbolize admiration and appreciation. Then there are the delicate, lovely, and exquisite white daisies representing innocence and purity. Not to forget the vibrant, colorful, and eye-catching purple statice flowers that signify remembrance. Each and every single one of these spectacular, amazing, and remarkable flowers was hand-picked with utmost care, consideration, and thoughtfulness to create this perfect, ideal, and flawless arrangement specifically designed to uplift your spirits, boost your mood, and bring joy to your heart!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts with appropriate and relevant turns. Speaker A praises the flowers and asks if Speaker B picked them. Speaker B responds directly and offers a reason, which is logically consistent. Speaker A then interjects, excusing the interruption, and asks a specific question about the types of flowers. While the pivot from \"looking down\" to \"flower types\" is a bit abrupt, it's still thematically linked to the flowers and the act of brightening spirits. However, Speaker B's final response to the question \"what specific types of flowers did you choose?\" is a significant issue. While the content does answer the question (listing types of flowers), the delivery is excessively verbose, filled with an extreme amount of hyperbole and redundant adjectives (\"magnificent, wonderful, and splendid,\" \"stunning, gorgeous, and breathtaking,\" etc.). This 43-second monologue, detailing the flowers in \"great, extensive, and excruciating detail,\" is disproportionate and unnatural for a casual conversation. It lacks logical consistency in terms of appropriate conversational responses and makes the interaction feel artificial rather than natural. A simple question is met with a performance rather than a concise, natural answer.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe initial turns show good interactional fluency, with brief pauses and a short, acceptable overlap at `[00:08 - 00:09]` where Speaker A begins speaking just as Speaker B is finishing their sentence. This is typical in natural conversation. However, the interactional fluency significantly breaks down with Speaker B's final turn (`[00:16 - 00:59]`). This turn lasts for an extremely long 43 seconds, transforming the dialogue into a monologue. This extended duration completely halts the natural turn-taking process of a conversation, preventing Speaker A from contributing and making the interaction feel one-sided and unnatural. Such a prolonged single utterance without any interruption or back-channeling is a clear indicator of poor interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--128336/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--34228",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Hey, Sarah! I'm so excited for tonight. I feel like I haven't gone out in forever.\n[00:05 - 00:09] Speaker B: I know, me too! It's going to be so much fun. What are you going to wear?\n[00:09 - 00:19] Speaker A: I don't know yet. I want to find something that looks really nice but is also comfortable since we'll be dancing all night. What about you? What are you going to wear? Do\n[00:19 - 00:26] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but speaking of dancing all night - what kind of shoes are you planning to wear for comfort during all that dancing?\n[00:27 - 01:11] Speaker A: Oh my goodness, let me tell you in great, extensive, and excruciating detail about my absolutely perfect, wonderful, and supremely comfortable shoe choice! I have this pair of absolutely amazing, spectacular, and phenomenally comfortable black ballet flats that have the most incredible, unbelievable, and extraordinary memory foam insoles that provide unparalleled, unmatched, and supreme cushioning and support for my precious, delicate, and hardworking feet. These shoes are so comfortable, so supportive, and so perfect that I could literally dance for hours and hours and hours without ever feeling even the slightest, tiniest, or most minimal discomfort in my feet whatsoever! They're truly miraculous, magical, and life-changing shoes!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue begins with a natural and relevant exchange. Speaker A expresses excitement, Speaker B reciprocates and asks a relevant follow-up about attire. Speaker A answers and returns the question, maintaining good topic coherence.\n\nThe issue with relevance begins at [00:19]. Speaker B's interjection about shoes, while related to the broader topic of clothing and comfort for dancing, feels slightly forced and overly specific. It's an abrupt shift from a general \"what are you going to wear?\" to a very narrow focus on \"shoes for comfort.\" This isn't a major relevance failure, but it's a slight deviation from the natural conversational flow established.\n\nThe primary breakdown in response relevance occurs with Speaker A's long monologue from [00:27 - 01:11]. While the content technically addresses Speaker B's question about shoes, the *manner* and *extent* of the response are highly irrelevant to a natural, casual conversation. The speaker goes into \"great, extensive, and excruciating detail\" about their shoes, using an excessive number of adjectives and taking up 44 seconds of dialogue time for a single item. This level of detail is disproportionate, unnatural, and completely derails the conversational flow. It feels like a prepared, overly descriptive answer rather than an organic, brief response one would expect in such a casual setting. The self-awareness implied by \"excruciating detail\" doesn't mitigate the fact that the response *is* excruciatingly detailed and thus irrelevant in its length and depth for the given context. It halts the natural progression of the conversation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe initial turns between Speaker A and Speaker B ([00:00 - 00:09]) demonstrate good interactional fluency. The turns are appropriately timed, and there are no extended pauses or overlaps.\n\nAt [00:09], Speaker A speaks for 10 seconds. This is a reasonable length for a turn, as they are explaining their thought process and then returning a question.\n\nAt [00:19], Speaker B interjects with \"Excuse me for interrupting, but speaking of dancing all night - what kind of shoes are you planning to wear for comfort during all that dancing?\". This is described as an interruption. However, the transcript does not provide specific timing that indicates an *overlap* (e.g., [00:18 - 00:20] Speaker B: [overlap] Excuse me...). Without clear timing markers indicating an overlap *during* Speaker A's prior turn, it's difficult to definitively mark this as an \"extended overlap\" that harms fluency. Assuming Speaker A had finished their sentence and Speaker B started immediately, it would be a brief, acceptable interruption. If Speaker B *cut off* Speaker A, it would be a harmful overlap, but the transcript doesn't specify this. Given the lack of specific overlap timing, I will assume it's not a harmful extended overlap.\n\nThe most significant fluency issue arises from the prolonged turn by Speaker A from [00:27 - 01:11]. This is a 44-second monologue. While it doesn't represent a \"long pause between speaker turns\" or an \"extended overlap,\" such a lengthy turn by one speaker without any interjection from the other speaker is a major detractor from interactional fluency in a casual dialogue. Natural conversations involve more frequent turn-taking and shorter turns, preventing one speaker from dominating for such an extended period on a single, relatively mundane topic. This long, uninterrupted speech makes the conversation feel unnatural and less like a dynamic interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--34228/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--135282",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:00] Speaker A: Hello?\n[00:01 - 00:02] Speaker B: Hi, what's going on?\n[00:02 - 00:06] Speaker A: I fell down the stairs and I think I've broken my leg. I\n[00:05 - 00:10] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but were you alone when this happened? Do you need me to call for help?\n[00:10 - 00:16] Speaker A: I fell down the stairs and I think I've broken my leg. The pain is unbearable right now.\n[00:16 - 00:20] Speaker B: But I asked if you were alone and need help. Should I call an ambulance?\n[00:20 - 00:25] Speaker A: I can't move my leg at all. I think I need to go to the hospital immediately.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues in response relevance, primarily stemming from Speaker A.\n\n*   **Speaker A's initial response (0:10-0:16):** Speaker A completely ignores Speaker B's direct questions (\"were you alone when this happened? Do you need me to call for help?\") and instead repeats almost verbatim their previous statement, only adding \"The pain is unbearable right now.\" This is a critical failure in relevance and logical consistency, as Speaker A fails to acknowledge or address Speaker B's attempt to gather information for assistance.\n*   **Speaker A's subsequent response (0:20-0:25):** Again, Speaker A avoids answering Speaker B's repeated and more urgent questions (\"But I asked if you were alone and need help. Should I call an ambulance?\"). Instead, Speaker A reiterates their need to go to the hospital, which is already understood, without providing the information Speaker B is actively seeking to provide help.\n\nSpeaker A's unresponsiveness and repetition severely hinder the logical progression of the conversation, especially in a crisis situation where clear communication and information exchange are paramount. Speaker B attempts to maintain relevance and topic coherence by asking practical questions, but Speaker A consistently fails to engage.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue presents significant issues regarding interactional fluency, specifically with extended overlaps and a lack of smooth turn-taking.\n\n*   **Extended Overlap (0:05-0:06):** Speaker B starts speaking at 0:05, while Speaker A is still speaking until 0:06. This is a clear and disruptive overlap where Speaker B interrupts Speaker A. Speaker B even acknowledges it by saying \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" but the interruption is prolonged and cuts off Speaker A's initial description of the incident. This prevents Speaker A from completing their thought before being interjected upon.\n*   **Lack of Acknowledgment/Engagement:** While there aren't long pauses, the fluency is severely impacted by Speaker A's consistent failure to acknowledge or directly respond to Speaker B's questions. This creates a disconnect where the conversation doesn't flow naturally as a collaborative exchange. Speaker B has to repeat questions (0:16-0:20) because Speaker A completely bypasses them, which indicates a breakdown in conversational turn-taking and responsiveness, even if the timing of the turns themselves isn't paused. This makes the interaction feel unnatural and disjointed.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--135282/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--116206",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: \"Wow, I can't believe I won that contest! Lifting a one ton weight over my head is no easy feat.\"\n[00:06 - 00:09] Speaker B: \"You sure are strong! How did you do it?\"\n[00:09 - 00:16] Speaker A: \"I don't know, I just got really lucky I guess. My muscles just suddenly bulked up and I had the strength to lift it\n[00:15 - 00:21] Speaker B: \"Excuse me for interrupting, but I've always wondered — did you take any special supplements to achieve that sudden muscle growth?\"\n[00:22 - 00:30] Speaker A: \"Oh yes! I drank three gallons of chocolate milk right before the competition. The calcium instantly converts to muscle mass, you know.\"\n[00:30 - 00:36] Speaker B: \"But I thought chocolate milk was just for recovery after workouts? And three gallons would make anyone sick before a competition!\"",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\n*   **Logical Consistency:** Speaker A's initial claim of lifting a one-ton weight and subsequent explanation of \"muscles just suddenly bulked up\" lack logical consistency with real-world human physiology. The claim that \"calcium instantly converts to muscle mass\" from chocolate milk is entirely factually incorrect and illogical. Speaker B, however, demonstrates good logical consistency in their responses, accepting the initial premise (even if fantastical) and then logically challenging Speaker A's increasingly absurd and factually incorrect explanations. Speaker B's final statement directly questions the illogical nature of Speaker A's claims, highlighting the lack of consistency. While topic coherence is maintained, Speaker A's contribution introduces significant issues regarding logical consistency with reality, which impacts the overall quality of the interaction.\n*   **Topic Coherence:** The dialogue maintains excellent topic coherence. All turns are directly related to the initial claim of winning the contest by lifting a heavy weight, and subsequent discussion revolves around the method and biological implications.\n\n**Conclusion for Response Relevance:** Speaker A's responses contain significant logical inconsistencies that make the dialogue unrealistic and challenge the premise of a \"natural\" conversation, even though Speaker B's responses are logically sound and coherent. This points to a significant issue in one aspect of Response Relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\n*   **Extended Overlaps:** There is one brief overlap identified: [00:15 - 00:16] where Speaker B begins speaking while Speaker A is still finishing their turn. This overlap is 1 second long and is immediately followed by Speaker B saying \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" indicating awareness and politeness. This falls under the category of \"brief overlaps\" which are considered acceptable and natural in conversation, not \"prolonged\" or \"extended.\"\n*   **Long Pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The conversation flows continuously with appropriate turn-taking.\n\n**Conclusion for Interactional Fluency:** The interactional fluency is excellent. The turns are smooth, and the single brief overlap is natural and acknowledged.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 3,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--116206/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--8562",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Wow, thank you so much for considering me for a promotion! I really appreciate it.\n[00:05 - 00:12] Speaker B: Of course, Kaya. You've been with the company for a long time and you're one of our most valued employees. We think you have a lot of potential to\n[00:11 - 00:19] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but could you elaborate on what specific new responsibilities and projects you're referring to?\n[00:19 - 01:14] Speaker B: Absolutely, absolutely, absolutely! Let me explain in great, extensive, comprehensive and thorough detail about these tremendously important, significant and valuable new responsibilities and projects we have in mind for you, our dear Kaya! First and foremost, you would be taking charge of the brand new, innovative and groundbreaking customer satisfaction initiative, which involves overseeing, managing and supervising a team of no less than fifteen, yes fifteen, highly skilled, trained and professional customer service representatives. Additionally, you would be spearheading, leading and directing the revolutionary, cutting-edge and state-of-the-art digital transformation project that will completely overhaul, revamp and modernize our entire, complete and total IT infrastructure! Furthermore, you would also be responsible for coordinating, organizing and arranging all interdepartmental meetings between marketing, sales and operations, which are crucial, vital and essential for our company's continued, sustained and ongoing success!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue maintains topic coherence throughout, focusing on a potential promotion and the associated responsibilities.\n*   **Speaker A (00:00-00:04):** The initial expression of thanks is a relevant and natural opening to a conversation about a promotion.\n*   **Speaker B (00:05-00:12):** Speaker B's affirmation and praise for Speaker A are relevant to the context of promotion consideration.\n*   **Speaker A (00:11-00:19):** Speaker A's interruption to ask for specific responsibilities is highly relevant and logical, as it seeks clarification on the promotion's details.\n*   **Speaker B (00:19-01:14):** Speaker B attempts to answer Speaker A's question by detailing new responsibilities. The *content* of the response (customer satisfaction initiative, digital transformation project, interdepartmental meetings) directly addresses Speaker A's query. However, the *delivery* is extremely verbose and uses an excessive amount of redundant adjectives and adverbs (\"absolutely, absolutely, absolutely!\", \"great, extensive, comprehensive and thorough detail\", \"tremendously important, significant and valuable\", \"brand new, innovative and groundbreaking\", etc.). While the core information is relevant, the unnatural, over-the-top language significantly detracts from the logical consistency and natural flow of a human conversation. It sounds artificial and performative rather than genuinely informative, despite providing the requested information. This extreme verbosity makes the response unnatural and reduces its perceived quality in a conversational context.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues with interactional fluency.\n*   **Overlap (00:11 - 00:12):** Speaker A starts speaking at 00:11 while Speaker B is still speaking until 00:12. This is a brief overlap, indicated by \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which is acceptable and natural, showing eagerness to clarify.\n*   **Long Pause (None detected):** There are no long pauses between turns.\n*   **Extended Overlap (None detected beyond the brief one noted):** No other extended overlaps are detected.\n\nThe primary issue affecting fluency is the extreme verbosity of Speaker B's final turn (00:19-01:14). While not a pause or overlap in the traditional sense, the sheer length and repetitive, over-the-top language of this single turn make the conversation unnatural and break the expected rhythm of a fluent interaction. A nearly minute-long monologue filled with redundant adjectives, even if it's in response to a direct question, makes the interaction feel like a speech rather than a dialogue. This disproportionate turn length, driven by unnatural language generation, significantly harms interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--8562/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--122122",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey coach, how's it going?\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: It's going good Alaysia. How are you feeling?\n[00:05 - 00:14] Speaker A: I'm feeling really good. I've been running every morning and lifting weights every evening. I've also been eating a healthy diet and drinking lots of water to\n[00:13 - 00:19] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but how much water exactly have you been drinking daily with this new routine?\n[00:19 - 00:27] Speaker A: I've been running every morning and lifting weights every evening. The consistency in my workout routine has really helped improve my stamina.\n[00:28 - 00:35] Speaker B: That's great to hear about your workout consistency, but I was actually asking about your water intake specifically. Could you share more about that?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance in this dialogue is problematic, primarily due to Speaker A's contributions.\nInitially, Speaker A's response at [00:05 - 00:14] is relevant to Speaker B's question \"How are you feeling?\", providing details about exercise and diet.\nSpeaker B's follow-up question at [00:13 - 00:19] is highly relevant, picking up on Speaker A's mention of water intake and seeking specific clarification.\nHowever, Speaker A's response at [00:19 - 00:27] completely fails on logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A repeats information already provided about running and lifting, and entirely ignores Speaker B's direct and specific question about water intake. This is a significant breakdown.\nSpeaker B then tries to re-establish topic coherence at [00:28 - 00:35] by explicitly pointing out that the question was not answered and re-asking it. This highlights Speaker A's previous irrelevant response.\nTherefore, due to Speaker A's failure to address a direct question and repeating previous information, there are significant issues with response relevance and logical consistency.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is generally natural and appropriate.\nThere are no long pauses between speaker turns.\nThere is an overlap at [00:13 - 00:14] where Speaker B interrupts Speaker A. However, Speaker B immediately acknowledges this with \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which is a natural and polite way to manage such an overlap. The overlap itself is brief (1 second) and serves a clear purpose of seeking clarification, making it an acceptable and functional part of the conversation rather than a harmful one.\nOverall, the flow of conversation is smooth despite the content issue with Speaker A's response.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--122122/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--124570",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Hey, boss. I know I'm early, but I wanted to start the day off right.\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker B: That's great, Juliana. It's always good to be punctual.\n[00:08 - 00:13] Speaker A: Yeah, I just feel like if I'm on time, then the day will go more smoothly.\n[00:13 - 00:17] Speaker B: That makes sense. Being punctual is definitely important in this line of work.\n[00:17 - 00:22] Speaker A: Yeah, I just don't want to get behind or fall behind in any of\n[00:21 - 00:24] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been meaning to ask —— Do\n[00:23 - 00:29] Speaker A: The weather today is quite nice, isn't it? I saw some beautiful clouds on my way here this morning.\n[00:30 - 00:35] Speaker B: That's not what I asked about. I wanted to know if arriving early impacts your morning productivity.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe initial turns between Speaker A and Speaker B are highly relevant and logically consistent, building on the topic of punctuality and its importance. Speaker A introduces the topic, Speaker B responds appropriately, and Speaker A elaborates, with Speaker B acknowledging and agreeing.\n\nHowever, a significant breakdown in response relevance occurs from [00:23 - 00:29]. Speaker B attempts to interrupt and ask a new question at [00:21 - 00:24], indicating a desire to shift the topic. Instead of responding to B's attempted question or acknowledging the interruption, Speaker A completely ignores B's unfinished sentence and abruptly introduces a completely unrelated topic about the weather. This is a severe lack of logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker B explicitly calls out this lack of relevance in the final turn, stating, \"That's not what I asked about.\" This clear derailment of the conversation by Speaker A indicates a major issue in response relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere are two instances of overlaps:\n1.  **[00:21 - 00:24]**: Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is still talking ([00:17 - 00:22]). This is a 1-second overlap (from 0:21 to 0:22). Speaker B explicitly says \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which indicates awareness and an attempt to manage the interruption, making this a relatively brief and somewhat acceptable overlap in terms of duration.\n2.  **[00:23 - 00:29]**: Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is still talking ([00:21 - 00:24]). This is also a 1-second overlap (from 0:23 to 0:24). While brief in duration, this overlap is problematic because Speaker A uses it to completely ignore Speaker B's attempted question and launch into a new, unrelated topic. Speaker A's subsequent 6-second turn effectively overrides Speaker B's attempt to speak, demonstrating a breakdown in conversational turn-taking rather than a natural, brief overlap. The combination of the overlap and the complete topic shift makes this instance harmful to interactional fluency as it disrupts the natural flow and speaker turns. There are no long pauses.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--124570/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--15620",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Mackinley, I had such a great time with you the other night. I can't stop thinking about you.\n[00:06 - 00:10] Speaker B: Makiah, I had a great time with you too. You're an amazing guy.\n[00:10 - 00:16] Speaker A: Mackinley, I want to see you again. I feel like we have a connection that I can't quite put\n[00:15 - 00:20] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but when you say \"connection\" - do you mean emotionally or physically?\n[00:20 - 00:25] Speaker A: I want to see you again because I feel like we have something special between us.\n[00:26 - 00:30] Speaker B: But I was asking whether you meant an emotional or physical connection. You didn't answer my question.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nSpeaker A initiates by expressing affection and a desire for connection. Speaker B's initial responses are relevant and reciprocate.\nHowever, a significant issue arises from [00:15 - 00:20] onwards. Speaker B asks a highly relevant clarifying question (\"do you mean emotionally or physically?\") in response to Speaker A's vague use of \"connection.\" This question is crucial for logical progression and shared understanding.\nSpeaker A's response in [00:20 - 00:25] (\"I want to see you again because I feel like we have something special between us\") *fails to directly answer* Speaker B's specific question. Instead, Speaker A rephrases their initial sentiment, effectively evading the requested clarification. This represents a breakdown in logical consistency and direct topic coherence, as the conversation is stalled on clarifying a key term.\nSpeaker B's final turn in [00:26 - 00:30] (\"But I was asking whether you meant an emotional or physical connection. You didn't answer my question.\") perfectly highlights this lack of relevance and logical follow-through from Speaker A. This direct call-out indicates a clear failure in Speaker A's response relevance, as it forces Speaker B to repeat a question that should have been addressed. This is a significant issue.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThe dialogue exhibits a brief overlap between [00:15 - 00:16], where Speaker B begins speaking while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence. Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this with \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which is a natural way to manage a brief overlap in conversation, making it less disruptive. The duration of the overlap (1 second) is brief and falls within the acceptable range for natural conversation.\nPauses between turns are short and natural (e.g., 1 second between [00:05] and [00:06], and between [00:25] and [00:26]). There are no prolonged silences that would hinder the flow of the conversation.\nOverall, the interactional fluency aspects (overlaps and pauses) are appropriate and natural, despite the brief, acknowledged interruption.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--15620/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--123333",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey, Mom, let me help you with those groceries.\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B: Oh, thank you, Rihanna! I appreciate it.\n[00:06 - 00:12] Speaker A: No problem. I know you've been working hard lately and could use some help around the house, especially\n[00:11 - 00:18] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but speaking of chores —— what do you think is the most important household chore that needs to be done regularly?\n[00:18 - 01:14] Speaker A: Oh my goodness, what an absolutely excellent, insightful and tremendously important question you've asked! The most crucial, vital and essential household chore that must be performed with great regularity and consistency is undoubtedly, unquestionably and indisputably the cleaning of dishes! This includes washing, scrubbing, rinsing and drying all plates, bowls, cups, utensils and cookware after every single meal, snack or food consumption activity! The accumulation of dirty dishes creates bacteria, odors and unsanitary conditions that can lead to health hazards, pest infestations and overall household disarray! Therefore, dishwashing must be prioritized above all other chores due to its immediate impact on hygiene, cleanliness and the prevention of foodborne illnesses! Did I mention how critically important it is to wash dishes immediately after use? Because it truly cannot be overstated how vital this chore is to maintaining a healthy home environment!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits some issues with Response Relevance. Speaker B's interjection and abrupt question about the \"most important household chore\" ([00:11 - 00:18]) comes at an odd point. Speaker A was empathizing and about to elaborate on general help around the house, and Speaker B pivots sharply to a very specific, almost formal, question. While \"chores\" relates to \"help around the house,\" the transition lacks natural logical consistency for a casual conversation.\n\nFurthermore, Speaker A's subsequent response ([00:18 - 01:14]) is excessively long, verbose, and overly dramatic. While it directly answers Speaker B's question, the manner and length of the response are highly unnatural and do not reflect logical consistency with typical conversational turn-taking or coherence in a natural dialogue. It reads more like a prepared speech or a rant rather than a spontaneous answer, making the interaction feel artificial.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional Fluency is significantly compromised in this dialogue.\nFirstly, there is an extended overlap: Speaker B begins speaking at 0:11 while Speaker A is still speaking until 0:12. Although Speaker B acknowledges the interruption (\"Excuse me for interrupting\"), a 1-second overlap where one speaker cuts off the other, even briefly, disrupts the flow.\nSecondly, and more significantly, Speaker A's final turn ([00:18 - 01:14]) is extremely long, lasting 56 seconds. This constitutes a prolonged, monologue-like turn that completely dominates the conversation and prevents any immediate back-and-forth interaction. While not a pause *between* turns, such an extended single turn effectively creates a long period of silence from the other participant's perspective, severely hindering the natural conversational rhythm and turn-taking. This is a major issue for interactional fluency, as natural dialogue involves more balanced and shorter turns.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--123333/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--126081",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: I'd like to buy this chocolate chip ice cream, please.\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B: Sure! That'll be $4.99.\n[00:06 - 00:08] Speaker A: OK. (hands over money)\n[00:08 - 00:10] Speaker B: So, are you looking forward to trying any\n[00:09 - 00:18] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but speaking of new flavors —— what would you recommend as the most exciting new ice cream variety available this season?\n[00:18 - 01:13] Speaker B: Oh my goodness, I would absolutely, positively, without a doubt recommend our spectacular, magnificent, utterly divine and extraordinarily delicious new flavor called \"Midnight Caramel Swirl\"! This absolutely phenomenal, breathtaking, mind-blowing and life-changing flavor features the most exquisite, perfect, heavenly combination of rich, velvety, smooth dark chocolate ice cream swirled with ribbons of buttery, gooey, luscious caramel that has been slow-cooked for precisely 37 hours to achieve optimal viscosity and flavor profile! The texture is so incredibly, unbelievably, extraordinarily creamy that it practically melts on your tongue in the most delightful, satisfying, euphoric way imaginable! And the flavor balance is so perfectly, precisely, meticulously calibrated between the deep, intense chocolate notes and the sweet, luxurious caramel that it creates a symphony of taste sensations that will absolutely, positively, without question transport your taste buds to new heights of ice cream ecstasy!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency.\n*   **[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A:** Initiates a clear request for a specific product.\n*   **[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B:** Provides a direct and appropriate response to the purchase request (the price).\n*   **[00:06 - 00:08] Speaker A:** Acknowledges the price and indicates action.\n*   **[00:08 - 00:10] Speaker B:** Attempts to engage the customer with a follow-up question, natural in a retail setting.\n*   **[00:09 - 00:18] Speaker A:** Although interrupting, the content of Speaker A's speech is directly relevant to Speaker B's preceding incomplete sentence about \"trying any [new flavors]\". Speaker A explicitly connects their question to the topic of new flavors.\n*   **[00:18 - 01:13] Speaker B:** Responds directly to Speaker A's specific request for a recommendation for an \"exciting new ice cream variety.\" While the response is extremely verbose and uses hyperbolic language, its content is entirely focused on answering the question posed.\n\nThere are no instances of topic drift or illogical responses. Each turn builds on the previous one or the established context.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue has mixed interactional fluency.\n*   **[00:00 - 00:05] Initial turns:** Pauses between turns (e.g., 00:02-00:03, 00:05-00:06) are brief and natural, indicative of smooth turn-taking.\n*   **[00:08 - 00:18] Overlap:** There is a brief overlap (00:09 Speaker A starts while 00:10 Speaker B finishes). Speaker A acknowledges this immediately with \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which makes the overlap acceptable and even natural, showing eagerness to speak. The prompt states \"brief overlaps... are acceptable.\"\n*   **[00:18 - 01:13] Speaker B's turn:** This turn is **extremely long (55 seconds)** and is an uninterrupted monologue. While there are no long *pauses* between turns, the excessive length of this single turn significantly hinders interactional fluency. A natural conversation involves back-and-forth exchange, and such a prolonged, uninterrupted description from one speaker turns the dialogue into a monologue, preventing the other speaker from participating or providing feedback. This disrupts the natural flow and balance of the interaction, making it feel unnatural and one-sided for an extended period. This is a significant issue for \"Interactional Fluency\" which emphasizes appropriate and natural conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--126081/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--68520",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Hey Wesley! I was just thinking, we should start a business together.\n[00:04 - 00:05] Speaker B: What kind of business?\n[00:06 - 00:10] Speaker A: A fashion business. You can be the designer and I'll be the CEO.\n[00:10 - 00:14] Speaker B: That sounds like a great idea! I've always wanted to design my own clothes.\n[00:14 - 00:20] Speaker A: Me too! We can make a lot of money and live our dream life. But what if we face challenges\n[00:20 - 00:23] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering —— What\n[00:22 - 00:28] Speaker A: The weather has been really nice lately, don't you think? I love how sunny it is this time of year.\n[00:28 - 00:34] Speaker B: That's not what I asked! I wanted to know about color schemes for our fashion line. Why are you talking about the weather?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts with good response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A proposes a business, Speaker B asks for clarification, and Speaker A provides details. Speaker B expresses enthusiasm, and Speaker A builds on it, introducing a potential challenge (\"But what if we face challenges\").\n\nHowever, there is a significant breakdown in response relevance from Speaker A at [00:22 - 00:28]. Speaker B attempts to interject with a question (\"Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering —— What\"), which seems intended to be relevant to the business discussion (e.g., about challenges, or a related aspect like \"color schemes\" as revealed later). Speaker A completely ignores Speaker B's incomplete thought and the ongoing topic of the business, abruptly shifting to a completely unrelated topic (\"The weather has been really nice lately, don't you think?\"). This is a blatant violation of logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker B immediately points this out, confirming the irrelevance. This indicates a major failure in response relevance for Speaker A's turn.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe initial turns show good interactional fluency with appropriate turn-taking and no significant pauses or overlaps.\n\nHowever, a problematic overlap occurs at [00:22 - 00:23]. Speaker B starts speaking at 0:20 and continues until 0:23. Speaker A begins speaking at 0:22 and continues until 0:28. This means there is a 1-second overlap where both speakers are talking. Speaker B explicitly states, \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which indicates an attempt to interject or take the floor. Speaker A then speaks over Speaker B's incomplete thought, not only creating an overlap but also disregarding Speaker B's attempt to contribute. While a 1-second overlap is brief, its impact is harmful because Speaker A completely overrides Speaker B's attempt to speak and then proceeds to change the subject entirely, demonstrating a lack of reciprocal engagement. There are no long pauses between turns.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--68520/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--85801",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A: Hey, it was great seeing you again! I had a really good time playing games and eating food. Thanks for having me over.\n[00:07 - 00:13] Speaker B: No problem, I'm glad you could come over. It's always nice to catch up with friends. So, how have you been?\n[00:13 - 00:21] Speaker A: I've been good, thanks for asking. Just been busy with work and stuff. But I'm doing well. How about your new\n[00:20 - 00:23] Speaker B: It's great catching up with friends like this. We should do it more often.\n[00:24 - 00:29] Speaker A: Wait, you didn't answer my question about your new job. Is everything going well there?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nSpeaker A asks Speaker B a direct question at [00:13 - 00:21]: \"How about your new [job]?\".\nSpeaker B's response at [00:20 - 00:23] is: \"It's great catching up with friends like this. We should do it more often.\"\nThis response is not relevant to Speaker A's question about their new job. Instead, Speaker B shifts the topic or provides a generic statement about catching up, completely ignoring the specific inquiry.\nSpeaker A then explicitly points out this lack of relevance at [00:24 - 00:29]: \"Wait, you didn't answer my question about your new job. Is everything going well there?\" This clearly indicates a breakdown in logical consistency and topic coherence from Speaker B's side.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThere is a clear and problematic overlap at the end of Speaker A's turn and the beginning of Speaker B's turn:\n- [00:13 - 00:21] Speaker A: \"...How about your new\" (implies \"...job?\")\n- [00:20 - 00:23] Speaker B: \"It's great catching up with friends like this. We should do it more often.\"\nSpeaker B starts speaking at 00:20 while Speaker A is still speaking until 00:21. This means Speaker B interrupts Speaker A's incomplete question. This is not a brief or acceptable overlap but an interruption that cuts off the other speaker's turn. The subsequent lack of a relevant response from Speaker B further highlights the disruption caused by this interruption, forcing Speaker A to re-intervene to clarify and re-ask the question. This prolonged interruption and the need for clarification significantly harm interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--85801/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--88040",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: I'm so sorry. I know how close you were to Max.\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker B: It's okay. I'm here for you. Let's talk about what happened.\n[00:07 - 00:18] Speaker A: I don't really know what happened. He was fine one minute and the next he just collapsed. The vet said it was sudden cardiac death and there was nothing we could have done to prevent it, which\n[00:17 - 00:22] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but did the vet mention if this condition is common in dogs of Max's breed?\n[00:22 - 00:31] Speaker A: It's just so sudden and unexpected. He was always so full of life and energy. I keep thinking about all the walks we won't get to take together anymore.\n[00:32 - 00:37] Speaker B: But I was asking about whether this condition is common in his breed. You didn't answer my question.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues in response relevance and logical consistency, stemming from a fundamental misunderstanding or reversal of roles regarding Max.\n1.  **Conflicting Roles:** Speaker A starts by consoling Speaker B (\"I know how close *you* were to Max\"), implying Max was Speaker B's pet. However, Speaker B's immediate response (\"I'm here for *you*. Let's talk about what happened.\") incredibly flips the dynamic, suggesting Speaker B is comforting Speaker A and asking Speaker A to explain the event. This is a severe logical inconsistency from the outset.\n2.  **Inconsistent Grief:** Speaker A then proceeds to describe Max's death as if Max was *their* pet (\"all the walks *we* won't get to take together anymore\"), reinforcing the idea that Speaker A is the grieving owner, which directly contradicts the initial premise.\n3.  **Topic Deviation and Ignoring:** Speaker B's question about the condition's commonality in Max's breed (00:17) is a sudden, detached factual inquiry in a moment of grief, which is already a relevance issue. Speaker A then completely ignores this direct question, continuing to express personal grief (00:22). This demonstrates a clear lack of topic coherence and failure to respond relevantly to the explicit question asked.\n4.  **Inappropriate Demands:** Speaker B's final statement (\"But I was asking about whether this condition is common in his breed. You didn't answer my question.\") is highly inappropriate and lacks emotional intelligence for a bereavement context. It prioritizes a factual answer over empathy or acknowledging the other person's emotional state, further breaking logical consistency and topic coherence in a sensitive conversation.\n\nOverall, the conversation is logically inconsistent, with speakers failing to align on their roles or the purpose of the interaction, and frequently ignoring each other's direct contributions in favor of their own, often misplaced, narratives.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is poor, primarily due to the severe relevance issues that make the conversation feel stilted, unnatural, and almost confrontational.\n1.  **Overlapping Turn:** There is a brief overlap at [00:17 - 00:22] where Speaker B interrupts Speaker A. While Speaker B says \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" the interruption itself breaks the natural flow and underscores Speaker B's abrupt shift in topic and demanding tone. This is not a prolonged overlap but contributes to the unnaturalness.\n2.  **Lack of Cohesion:** Beyond specific timing issues, the entire dialogue lacks natural flow and coherence. The speakers fail to build on each other's contributions in a meaningful way. Speaker B's immediate role reversal, followed by a factual interrogation in a grief context, and Speaker A's complete disregard for direct questions, lead to a disjointed and uncomfortable exchange rather than a fluid conversation. There are no explicit long pauses, but the conversational turns are jarring and disconnected, preventing any sense of natural interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--88040/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--100757",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: You're pregnant?!\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: Yeah, I'm six months along now\n[00:02 - 00:07] Speaker A: Wait, six months already? Have you started feeling the baby kick yet?\n[00:07 - 00:11] Speaker B: It's been quite a journey adjusting to all the changes in my body and lifestyle.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue maintains strong topic coherence, consistently focusing on Speaker B's pregnancy. However, there is an issue with logical consistency in Speaker B's final turn. Speaker A asks a very specific question: \"Have you started feeling the baby kick yet?\" Speaker B's response, \"It's been quite a journey adjusting to all the changes in my body and lifestyle,\" is a general statement about the experience of pregnancy and does not directly answer the question asked. While related to the broader topic, it deflects or avoids the specific query about the baby kicking, creating a minor break in the logical flow of the conversation. This makes the response less appropriate and natural in terms of direct information exchange.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally good. There are no long pauses between speaker turns. There is a brief overlap between Speaker A's second turn (00:02) and Speaker B's first turn (00:03). This overlap (00:02 - 00:03) is minimal and falls under the category of \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable\" as per the instructions, indicating a natural, unhesitant flow.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--100757/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--59602",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey, Ripley. How's business been?\n[00:02 - 00:07] Speaker B: Oh, you know. Up and down. But I think we're finally starting to turn a corner, thanks to your help.\n[00:08 - 00:12] Speaker A: I'm just happy to be able to help out. You know how much I love this place.\n[00:13 - 00:18] Speaker B: And I appreciate everything you've done for me, Salome. Seriously. I don't know what I would do without your guidance\n[00:17 - 00:22] Speaker A: Speaking of tough times, what was the hardest challenge you faced during that period?\n[00:22 - 00:29] Speaker B: I was just saying how much your support has meant to me. Having someone who believes in you makes all the difference when you're running a business.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts with good relevance and coherence. Speaker A asks about business, Speaker B responds, and they engage in a mutual exchange of appreciation. However, a significant issue arises at the end. At [00:17 - 00:22], Speaker A abruptly changes the topic from appreciation to \"tough times\" and asks about the \"hardest challenge,\" interjecting while Speaker B is still speaking. The major problem for logical consistency and topic coherence occurs in Speaker B's final turn [00:22 - 00:29]. Speaker B completely ignores Speaker A's direct question (\"what was the hardest challenge you faced during that period?\") and instead reiterates their previous point about the importance of support. This demonstrates a clear breakdown in logical consistency and topic coherence, as Speaker B's response is not relevant to Speaker A's immediate prompt.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a brief overlap at [00:17 - 00:18] where Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence. This is a 1-second overlap. While the instructions state \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" the nature of this overlap is an interruption where Speaker A introduces a new topic. More importantly, the subsequent interaction highlights a fluency breakdown. Speaker B, instead of responding to Speaker A's interjection and question, continues their previous thought. This indicates a disruption in natural turn-taking, potentially caused by the abrupt interruption, leading to an unnatural conversational flow where one speaker's turn is effectively ignored by the other. Although there are no long pauses or extended overlaps, the interaction fails to flow naturally due to the ignored question.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--59602/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--36680",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey, bro! Long time no see.\n[00:03 - 00:08] Speaker B: Hey! Yeah, I know. I've been meaning to call you, but things have just been so hectic lately.\n[00:08 - 00:11] Speaker A: I can imagine. So, what's new?\n[00:11 - 00:14] Speaker B: Well, the big news is that I'm getting married!\n[00:14 - 00:18] Speaker A: That's amazing! Congratulations! When's the big day?\n[00:18 - 00:25] Speaker B: Thank you! We're hoping to do it sometime next year. We're just in the planning stages right now. Trying to figure out all the logistics and make sure\n[00:24 - 00:32] Speaker A: Speaking of wedding budgets, I've heard destination weddings can actually be cheaper than traditional ones - is that something you're considering?\n[00:33 - 00:41] Speaker B: Absolutely! We're planning to get married on the moon actually - NASA offers great wedding packages with zero gravity ceremonies for just $5,000.\n[00:41 - 00:46] Speaker A: Wait... the moon? And NASA does weddings now? That doesn't sound right at all.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance starts off strong and natural. Speaker A and B engage in a typical catch-up conversation, with logical follow-ups and appropriate disclosures. Speaker B's announcement of getting married is a coherent response to \"what's new?\" Speaker A's congratulations and follow-up questions are perfectly relevant. Speaker B's details about planning for next year are also relevant.\n\nHowever, a significant breakdown occurs with Speaker B's response at [00:33 - 00:41]. When asked about considering destination weddings and budgets, Speaker B claims they are \"planning to get married on the moon\" with \"NASA packages\" for \"$5,000.\" This statement completely breaks logical consistency and reality. It introduces a fantastical element that is entirely implausible and not coherent with the established reality of the conversation. Speaker A's subsequent reaction at [00:41 - 00:46] correctly identifies this as illogical, further highlighting the severe logical inconsistency of Speaker B's previous turn. This one instance is a major failure in response relevance, as it makes the dialogue nonsensical.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally good throughout the dialogue. Pauses between turns are brief or non-existent, indicating a smooth flow.\n- [00:02 - 00:03]: 1-second pause, acceptable.\n- [00:08 - 00:08]: 0-second pause, acceptable.\n- [00:11 - 00:11]: 0-second pause, acceptable.\n- [00:14 - 00:14]: 0-second pause, acceptable.\n- [00:25 - 00:24]: There is an overlap where Speaker A starts speaking at 00:24 while Speaker B is still speaking until 00:25. This is a 1-second overlap. While the prompt states \"prolonged overlaps... are harmful,\" a 1-second overlap can be considered brief and acceptable in natural conversation, possibly indicating eagerness or a slight interruption, rather than a significant fluency issue. Speaker B's sentence \"Trying to figure out all the logistics and make sure\" ends somewhat abruptly, suggesting it might have been cut off, but it's not a lengthy or disruptive overlap.\n- [00:32 - 00:33]: 1-second pause, acceptable.\n- [00:41 - 00:41]: 0-second pause, acceptable.\n\nOverall, the interactional fluency is appropriate and natural, with only a minor and brief overlap that does not significantly impede the conversation flow.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--36680/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--18131",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hey, I really like you. Would you like to go out sometime?\n[00:04 - 00:05] Speaker B: Yeah, I'd love to.\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker A: Great! I'm so excited about\n[00:07 - 00:11] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but how long exactly have you been wanting to ask me out?\n[00:12 - 00:16] Speaker A: I'm really looking forward to our date. I think we'll have a great time together.\n[00:16 - 00:21] Speaker B: That's nice, but you still haven't told me how long you've liked me. I'm curious about that.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\n*   **[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hey, I really like you. Would you like to go out sometime?** - Initiates the conversation with a clear proposal.\n*   **[00:04 - 00:05] Speaker B: Yeah, I'd love to.** - Directly and appropriately responds to Speaker A's question, accepting the proposal. This is logically consistent.\n*   **[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker A: Great! I'm so excited about** - Speaker A's response is a natural follow-up to Speaker B's acceptance, expressing excitement about the outcome.\n*   **[00:07 - 00:11] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but how long exactly have you been wanting to ask me out?** - While an interruption, Speaker B's question is relevant to the preceding statements of \"liking\" and asking out. It introduces a new, related line of inquiry that is logically connected to the context of A's feelings.\n*   **[00:12 - 00:16] Speaker A: I'm really looking forward to our date. I think we'll have a great time together.** - **Significant Issue**: Speaker A completely ignores Speaker B's direct question (\"how long exactly have you been wanting to ask me out?\") and instead reverts to expressing excitement about the date. This demonstrates a severe lack of logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A fails to acknowledge or address the question posed by Speaker B, effectively derailing the conversational flow and avoiding the topic.\n*   **[00:16 - 00:21] Speaker B: That's nice, but you still haven't told me how long you've liked me. I'm curious about that.** - Speaker B's response is highly relevant, as they are pointing out Speaker A's evasion and reiterating the unanswered question, attempting to bring coherence back to the conversation.\n\n**Conclusion for Response Relevance:** There is a significant breakdown in response relevance due to Speaker A's complete evasion of a direct question in their third turn. This severely impacts the logical consistency and coherence of the dialogue from Speaker A's side.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\n*   **[00:03 - 00:04] Pause (1 second) between A and B's first turns:** This is a short, acceptable pause.\n*   **[00:07 - 00:08] Overlap (1 second) between Speaker A and Speaker B:** Speaker B interrupts Speaker A (\"Excuse me for interrupting\"). This is a brief overlap, and Speaker B immediately acknowledges and apologizes for it, which mitigates its impact on fluency. It's not an extended or prolonged overlap.\n*   **[00:11 - 00:12] Pause (1 second) between B and A's turns:** This is a short, acceptable pause.\n*   **[00:16 - 00:16] Pause (0 seconds) between A and B's turns:** Speaker B responds immediately. This is perfectly fluent.\n\n**Conclusion for Interactional Fluency:** The dialogue exhibits good interactional fluency. The pauses are brief and natural, and the single overlap is short, acknowledged, and does not significantly hinder the conversational flow. There are no \"extended overlaps\" or \"long pauses\" that would be considered harmful.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--18131/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--102088",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, what's your problem?\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: I don't have a problem.\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker A: Then why are you looking at me like that?\n[00:06 - 00:08] Speaker B: I'm not looking at you in any particular way.\n[00:09 - 00:12] Speaker A: Well, it looks to me like you're trying to start some kind\n[00:11 - 00:19] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but could you clarify what specific facial expression or body language makes you think I'm looking at you in that particular manner?\n[00:19 - 01:04] Speaker A: Oh absolutely, I can explain in great, extensive, and meticulous detail! First of all, your eyebrows were ever so slightly furrowed in what appeared to be an aggressive, confrontational, and hostile manner. Secondly, your pupils were noticeably dilated to an unusually large, expansive, and intimidating degree. Thirdly, the angle at which your head was tilted suggested a challenging, provocative, and belligerent posture. Furthermore, the subtle twitch of your upper lip indicated potential malice, ill-intent, and antagonism. All these minute yet significant, observable yet subtle, physical yet psychological cues combined to form what I perceived as an unmistakable, undeniable, and irrefutable expression of trouble-starting intent!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\n- **Logical Consistency:** The dialogue maintains strong logical consistency. Speaker A initiates with an accusation (\"what's your problem?\", \"why are you looking at me like that?\"), which Speaker B denies. Speaker A escalates their perception, and Speaker B, instead of just denying, requests clarification on *what* specifically makes A think that. Speaker A then responds by providing extremely detailed justification for their perception. The flow of question, denial, escalation, clarification request, and detailed justification is logically coherent.\n- **Topic Coherence:** The entire dialogue consistently revolves around Speaker A's perception of Speaker B's \"look\" and the underlying tension it implies. There are no deviations from this central topic.\n- **Content Relevance:**\n    - Speaker B's initial denials are directly relevant to Speaker A's accusations.\n    - Speaker B's request for clarification (\"could you clarify what specific facial expression or body language...\") is highly relevant to Speaker A's ongoing accusation (\"you're trying to start some kind\"). It seeks to understand the basis of the accusation.\n    - Speaker A's final, extensive response is meticulously relevant to Speaker B's request for clarification, providing an exhaustive list of perceived cues.\n\nOverall, Response Relevance is excellent, as all turns are directly pertinent to the ongoing topic and build logically upon previous turns.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\n- **Extended Overlaps:**\n    - At `00:11 - 00:19`, Speaker B begins speaking while Speaker A is still talking (`00:09 - 00:12`). There is a 1-second overlap (from 00:11 to 00:12). Speaker B explicitly says \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" acknowledging the overlap. While the overlap itself is brief, Speaker B's turn *interrupts* Speaker A mid-sentence and is quite long (8 seconds). The instruction states \"prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\" Speaker B's turn is an overlapping turn that cuts off Speaker A, which impacts fluency negatively, even if acknowledged.\n- **Long Pauses:**\n    - There is a 1-second pause between Speaker A's turn (00:03-00:05) and Speaker B's turn (00:06-00:08). This is acceptable.\n    - There is a 1-second pause between Speaker B's turn (00:06-00:08) and Speaker A's turn (00:09-00:12). This is also acceptable.\n- **Unnatural Turn Lengths:** This is the most significant issue for interactional fluency.\n    - Speaker B's turn at `00:11 - 00:19` is 8 seconds long, which is quite lengthy for a single conversational turn requesting clarification, especially one that interrupts.\n    - Speaker A's final turn at `00:19 - 01:04` is an exceptionally long monologue, lasting 45 seconds. This is highly unnatural for a spontaneous verbal interaction and completely breaks the dynamic of a reciprocal dialogue, turning it into a one-sided speech. The expectation in natural conversation is for shorter, more balanced turn-taking. This extended monologue significantly detracts from the \"natural\" quality of the interaction.\n\nWhile the brief pauses are fine and the overlap itself is short (though it represents an interruption), the extreme length of Speaker A's final turn and the significant length of Speaker B's preceding turn severely impair the interactional fluency, making the dialogue feel stilted and unnatural rather than flowing.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--102088/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--137234",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hi, Saba. Are you okay?\n[00:02 - 00:08] Speaker B: Yes, I'm fine. Thank you so much for rescuing me from that fire. I don't know what would have happened if you hadn't come in\n[00:08 - 00:15] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering - how did you even get trapped in that fire in the first place?\n[00:15 - 00:20] Speaker B: I'm just so grateful you were there to help me. That situation could have ended very badly.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts with a logical exchange. Speaker A asks a question, and Speaker B responds relevantly, introducing the context of a fire rescue. Speaker A's subsequent question, \"how did you even get trapped in that fire in the first place?\", is highly relevant and a natural, logical follow-up given Speaker B's prior statement about being rescued. However, Speaker B's final response (\"I'm just so grateful you were there to help me. That situation could have ended very badly.\") completely avoids answering Speaker A's direct question. Instead, Speaker B reiterates gratitude and the severity of the situation, shifting away from the requested information. This constitutes a significant break in logical consistency and topic coherence, as a direct question is left unanswered, hindering the flow of information.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe transcript does not indicate any long pauses between speaker turns. The turn durations are relatively short, suggesting a natural conversational pace. Speaker A's phrase \"Excuse me for interrupting\" might suggest a brief overlap or a quick, eager interjection, but the evaluation criteria state that \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and there is no indication of an *extended* or prolonged overlap that would disrupt fluency. Overall, the interaction flows without apparent issues related to timing or extended overlaps.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_13_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--137234/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--32898",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: I don't think you should do that, Selim.\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: Why not? I want to try it and see if I can gain\n[00:04 - 00:10] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but what kind of new experiences are you hoping to gain exactly?\n[00:10 - 00:16] Speaker B: Oh, I'm planning to learn how to fly by jumping off tall buildings - gravity works differently when you're determined enough!\n[00:17 - 00:24] Speaker A: Wait, that doesn't sound right. Gravity doesn't change based on determination. Are you sure about this method?\n[00:24 - 00:29] Speaker B: Absolutely! I read that birds learned to fly this way, so it must work for humans too.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nThe dialogue maintains topic coherence throughout. Speaker A expresses concern, Speaker B asks why, Speaker A clarifies, Speaker B explains their intent, and Speaker A challenges it. Speaker B then justifies their bizarre plan. Each turn is directly related to the previous one and the central topic of Selim's plan.\nHowever, there are significant issues with **logical consistency**, primarily on Speaker B's side. Speaker B's statements about \"gravity works differently when you're determined enough\" and \"birds learned to fly this way\" are fundamentally illogical, nonsensical, and dangerous in a real-world context. While Speaker A attempts to introduce logical consistency by challenging these claims, Speaker B doubles down on their irrationality. This lack of logical consistency from one participant heavily impacts the overall quality of the interaction's logical flow, even if the turns are topically relevant. The dialogue descends into absurdity due to Speaker B's illogical premises.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThere is one clear extended overlap:\n*   **[00:04 - 00:10] Speaker A** starts speaking at [00:04] while **Speaker B** is still speaking until [00:05]. This is an overlap of 1 second. Speaker A acknowledges the interruption (\"Excuse me for interrupting\"), which slightly mitigates the disruptiveness, but it is still a prolonged overlap.\nThere are no long pauses between speaker turns. The turns generally follow one another without significant delay, besides the noted overlap.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 3,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--32898/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--36911",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hi Caysen. How are you today?\n[00:02 - 00:07] Speaker B: I'm doing well, thank you. I was wondering if I could ask you a few questions about your job.\n[00:07 - 00:09] Speaker A: Sure, what would you like to know?\n[00:09 - 00:12] Speaker B: Well, first of all, what do you do on a day-to-day basis?\n[00:13 - 00:20] Speaker A: That's a difficult question to answer because my job is very unique. Basically, I help people with their personal issues\n[00:19 - 00:22] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but —— What\n[00:21 - 00:26] Speaker A: The weather has been quite unpredictable lately, don't you think? I heard it might rain tomorrow.\n[00:27 - 00:34] Speaker B: That's not what I asked. I wanted to know about the personal issues you help with in your job. Why did you suddenly change the topic?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts with good response relevance. Speaker B asks about Speaker A's job, and Speaker A provides a relevant, albeit vague, answer. Speaker B attempts to seek clarification or more detail, which is also relevant. However, at [00:21 - 00:26], Speaker A completely shifts the topic from their job and personal issues to the weather, without any logical transition or explanation. This is a severe breach of topic coherence and logical consistency. Speaker B's subsequent response [00:27 - 00:34] explicitly calls out this lack of relevance and topic shift, confirming it as a major issue. This single instance of complete topic derailment by Speaker A significantly impacts the response relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere are two instances of overlaps:\n1.  [00:19 - 00:22] Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is still talking at [00:13 - 00:20]. This overlap lasts for about 1 second (at 00:19-00:20). Speaker B explicitly says \"Excuse me for interrupting\", indicating awareness and an attempt to interject for clarification. This type of brief, apologetic interjection is common in natural conversation and generally acceptable.\n2.  [00:21 - 00:26] Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is still talking at [00:19 - 00:22]. This overlap lasts for about 1 second (at 00:21-00:22). In this instance, Speaker A cuts off Speaker B's attempt to clarify/continue the conversation and immediately changes the topic. While the overlap duration is brief, the *context* of Speaker A cutting off Speaker B to introduce an irrelevant topic indicates a breakdown in natural turn-taking and a disregard for the previous speaker's utterance, which negatively impacts interactional fluency beyond just the duration of the overlap. There are no long pauses between speaker turns.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--36911/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--120150",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hey, Mom. Do you need any help with the groceries?\n[00:03 - 00:08] Speaker B: Yes, thank you, Reinaldo. That would be great. Can you grab those two bags out of the trunk?\n[00:08 - 00:09] Speaker A: Sure thing.\n[00:10 - 00:14] Speaker B: You've been such a big help lately, Reinaldo. I really appreciate all the\n[00:13 - 00:20] Speaker A: Mom, speaking of helping around the house - didn't you say last week that we should start composting our food waste?\n[00:20 - 00:27] Speaker B: Oh yes! We should definitely start throwing all our food scraps into the regular trash bin. That's the best way to help the environment.\n[00:27 - 00:34] Speaker A: Wait, I thought composting meant separating food waste for recycling, not throwing it in the regular trash?\n[00:34 - 00:41] Speaker B: You're absolutely right, dear. I must have gotten confused because we've been talking about so many different chores lately.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A's initial offer to help is relevant to the immediate context. Speaker B's response accepts the help and provides a specific task. The transition initiated by Speaker A from \"helping around the house\" to composting is a coherent shift, as both topics fall under the general theme of household responsibilities. Speaker B's initial incorrect statement about composting (throwing waste into the regular trash) is a factual error, but Speaker A immediately identifies and questions this inconsistency, prompting Speaker B to correct herself and provide a plausible reason for the confusion. This dynamic interaction demonstrates active listening and self-correction, maintaining overall logical consistency and topic coherence within the conversation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is one notable issue regarding interactional fluency:\n*   **Extended Overlap/Interruption (00:13 - 00:14):** Speaker A begins speaking at 00:13, overlapping with Speaker B who is still speaking until 00:14. Crucially, Speaker A cuts off Speaker B mid-sentence (\"I really appreciate all the\"). This is not a brief, acceptable overlap but a clear interruption that prevents Speaker B from completing her thought, which is considered a significant flaw in interactional fluency and naturalness. There are no prolonged pauses.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--120150/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--140301",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hi. I'm here to board the flight to Los Angeles.\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B: Let me see your ticket and ID, please.\n[00:06 - 00:07] Speaker A: Here you go.\n[00:07 - 00:10] Speaker B: I'm sorry, but it looks like your ticket has been flagged for\n[00:09 - 00:15] Speaker A: Excuse me, what exactly does \"flagged\" mean in this context? Is this a security issue?\n[00:15 - 00:21] Speaker B: Please have a seat while we check your ticket details. This is standard procedure when there are discrepancies in the booking system.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in the dialogue are highly relevant and maintain logical consistency throughout the interaction.\n- Speaker A's initial statement clearly sets the context for checking in for a flight.\n- Speaker B's request for ticket and ID is the standard and expected response in this scenario.\n- Speaker A's \"Here you go\" is a natural confirmation.\n- Speaker B's statement about the ticket being \"flagged\" introduces a problem directly related to the previous turn.\n- Speaker A's immediate follow-up question (\"what exactly does 'flagged' mean... Is this a security issue?\") is perfectly logical and relevant, seeking clarification on a concerning term.\n- Speaker B's final response (\"Please have a seat while we check... This is standard procedure...\") directly addresses Speaker A's implicit concern (what happens next, why is this happening) and provides instructions. The explanation of \"discrepancies in the booking system\" also clarifies the \"flagged\" term, although not fully elaborated.\n\nOverall, the conversation progresses logically with each turn building coherently on the previous one, demonstrating strong topic coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction generally flows well with appropriate turn-taking. There is one instance of an overlap:\n- At `[00:09 - 00:10]`, Speaker A begins speaking while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence (\"...flagged for\"). This results in Speaker B's sentence being cut off.\n\nWhile this is an overlap, it is brief (approximately 1 second) and occurs in a context where Speaker A is seeking immediate clarification on a potentially concerning term (\"flagged\"). Such brief, clarification-seeking interruptions are common in natural conversation and do not significantly hinder the understanding or flow. Speaker A's question is directly prompted by Speaker B's incomplete statement, indicating an eagerness for information rather than a disruptive interruption. There are no long pauses detected that would impede the conversation. Given that \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" this instance falls within that acceptable range.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--140301/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--127987",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, Ansel, what's up?\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: Not much, what's up with you?\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker A: I'm just a little angry with you right now.\n[00:06 - 00:07] Speaker B: Why, what happened?\n[00:08 - 00:11] Speaker A: Well, you didn't do the dishes like I asked you to.\n[00:11 - 00:13] Speaker B: I'm sorry, I forgot.\n[00:13 - 00:19] Speaker A: It's not just that you forgot, it's that you didn't even try to do them. You just left them in the\n[00:18 - 00:24] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I have to ask —— how many days exactly are we talking about here when you say \"for days\"?\n[00:25 - 01:07] Speaker A: Oh my goodness, let me tell you in great, extensive, and excruciating detail about the exact number of days we're discussing here! First and foremost, when I say \"for days,\" I mean precisely three entire days, which is equivalent to seventy-two full hours, or four thousand three hundred and twenty complete minutes! These dishes have been sitting there, accumulating, piling up, and multiplying in that very same sink since last Thursday evening at approximately 7:45 PM, which was exactly when we finished eating our delicious but now regrettable spaghetti dinner! That means they've been there through Friday, Saturday, and now Sunday afternoon, making it a full, complete, and undeniable three-day period of dish neglect!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses are logically consistent and maintain topic coherence throughout the dialogue. Speaker A's initial statements about being angry and the reason (dishes) are clear. Speaker B's apology and subsequent question about the duration (\"for days\") are direct and relevant. Speaker A's final response, while extremely verbose and sarcastic, is a direct and detailed answer to Speaker B's question about the exact number of days. The content is logically connected to the previous turn and remains on topic.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a brief overlap between Speaker A and Speaker B at `[00:18 - 00:19]`. Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this with \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which makes the overlap feel less disruptive and more intentional for clarification. This brief overlap is acceptable as per the guidelines.\n\nHowever, there is a significant long pause of 6 seconds between Speaker B's question at `[00:24]` and Speaker A's extensive reply starting at `[00:25]`. This prolonged pause disrupts the natural flow of conversation.\n\nFurthermore, Speaker A's final turn `[00:25 - 01:07]` is an exceptionally long monologue, lasting 42 seconds. While not a pause or an overlap, such an extended turn from a single speaker significantly impedes the interactive nature and natural back-and-forth flow of a dialogue, making it feel more like a speech than a conversation. This constitutes a significant issue for interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--127987/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--88768",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: This is so nice.\n[00:01 - 00:04] Speaker B: Yes, it is. I'm glad we could spend some time together.\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker A: Me too. I feel like I can really be myself around you.\n[00:08 - 00:12] Speaker B: That's good to hear. I want you to feel comfortable with sharing anything\n[00:11 - 00:17] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering —— what exactly do you mean by \"sharing anything that's on my mind\"?\n[00:17 - 01:39] Speaker B: Oh my dear friend, when I say \"sharing anything that's on your mind,\" I mean absolutely anything at all, completely without limits or restrictions or boundaries of any kind whatsoever! You could share your deepest thoughts, your most private feelings, your wildest dreams, your darkest fears, your happiest memories, your saddest moments, your most embarrassing secrets, your proudest achievements, your silliest jokes, your most profound realizations, your most trivial observations, your most personal experiences, your most abstract ideas, your most concrete plans, your most fleeting impressions, your most lasting convictions, your most controversial opinions, your most conventional beliefs, your most outrageous fantasies, your most mundane concerns, your most urgent questions, your most patient reflections, your most spontaneous reactions, your most carefully considered judgments, your most impulsive decisions, your most cherished hopes, your most dreaded anxieties, your most passionate loves, your most bitter resentments, your most generous impulses, your most selfish desires, your most noble aspirations, your most shameful regrets, your most exciting adventures, your most boring routines, your most creative inspirations, your most frustrating obstacles, your most satisfying accomplishments, your most disappointing failures, your most meaningful relationships, your most casual acquaintances, your most important values, your most trivial preferences, your most serious commitments, your most playful whims, your most difficult challenges, your easiest pleasures, your most complex dilemmas, your simplest joys, your most confusing paradoxes, your clearest insights, your most painful losses, your most wonderful gains, your most terrifying nightmares, your most comforting daydreams, your most stressful worries, your most relaxing moments, your most demanding responsibilities, your most carefree pastimes, your most intense emotions, your most calm states, your most chaotic experiences, your most orderly habits, your most surprising discoveries, your most predictable patterns, your most unusual talents, your most ordinary skills, your most exceptional abilities, your most common weaknesses, your most unique qualities, your most shared characteristics, your most personal quirks, your most universal truths, your most individual perspectives, your most collective wisdom, your most subjective impressions, your most objective facts, your most idealistic visions, your most practical concerns, your most spiritual beliefs, your most material interests, your most intellectual pursuits, your most physical sensations, your most emotional responses, your most rational analyses, your most intuitive hunches, your most conscious choices, your most unconscious motives, your most deliberate actions, your most automatic reactions, your most voluntary efforts, your most involuntary reflexes, your most active engagements, your most passive observations, your most productive activities, your most idle moments, your most constructive contributions, your most destructive tendencies, your most positive attributes, your most negative flaws, your most admirable virtues, your most regrettable vices, your most beneficial habits, your most harmful addictions, your most healing practices, your most damaging behaviors, your most uplifting experiences, your most depressing circumstances, your most inspiring encounters, your most discouraging setbacks, your most enlightening revelations, your most bewildering mysteries, your most comforting certainties, your most disturbing uncertainties, your most promising opportunities, your most threatening dangers, your most rewarding investments, your most costly mistakes, your most fortunate coincidences, your most unfortunate accidents, your most deserved successes, your most unfair failures, your most justified angers, your most unreasonable irritations, your most appropriate responses, your most inappropriate outbursts, your most mature understandings, your most childish impulses, your most responsible decisions, your most reckless choices, your most careful preparations, your most spontaneous actions, your most thoughtful considerations, your most instinctive reactions, your most planned strategies, your most improvised solutions, your most systematic approaches, your most random occurrences, your most predictable outcomes, your most unexpected twists, your most conventional methods, your most unconventional ideas, your most traditional values, your most innovative concepts, your most familiar routines, your most novel experiences, your most comfortable habits, your most challenging changes, your most reliable patterns, your most surprising developments, your most stable foundations, your most turbulent transitions, your most peaceful moments, your most conflicted situations, your most harmonious relationships, your most difficult conflicts, your most cooperative efforts, your most competitive rivalries, your most trusting bonds, your most suspicious attitudes, your most open communications, your most guarded secrets, your most transparent intentions, your most hidden agendas, your most sincere expressions, your most deceptive appearances, your most authentic selves, your most",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe initial turns (Speaker A: [00:00 - 00:01], Speaker B: [00:01 - 00:04], Speaker A: [00:04 - 00:08], Speaker B: [00:08 - 00:12]) demonstrate good logical consistency and topic coherence, as speakers build rapport and respond naturally to each other. Speaker A's clarifying question ([00:11 - 00:17]) is a perfectly relevant and logical follow-up to Speaker B's preceding statement (\"sharing anything\").\n\nHowever, Speaker B's final response ([00:17 - 01:39]) severely impacts the quality of Response Relevance. While it is logically consistent in that it attempts to define \"anything\" as requested, its execution is extremely problematic for a natural dialogue. The response is an exhaustive, hyperbolic, and excessively verbose list that lasts for 1 minute and 22 seconds. This over-explanation, while technically on topic, makes the response conversationally incoherent and highly unnatural. In the context of a casual interaction, such an over-the-top, non-interactive monologue is disproportionate to the simple clarification sought and breaks the expected flow of a coherent conversation. It moves from dialogue to a performance, undermining the relevance of the speaker's turn in an interactional setting.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue exhibits one brief overlap between Speaker B's turn (ending at 00:12) and Speaker A's turn (starting at 00:11), lasting approximately 1 second. This is explicitly acknowledged by Speaker A with \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which makes it an acceptable brief overlap according to the guidelines. There are no prolonged pauses between turns.\n\nHowever, the most significant issue for interactional fluency lies in the extraordinary length of Speaker B's final turn ([00:17 - 01:39]). This uninterrupted monologue lasts for 1 minute and 22 seconds. While not an 'overlap' or 'pause' in the strict sense defined by the prompt's examples, such an extended, one-sided speech fundamentally disrupts the natural give-and-take of a conversation. It completely prevents Speaker A from contributing, interjecting, or even acknowledging for a prolonged period, thereby demonstrating a profound lack of interactional fluency in the broader sense of natural turn-taking and conversational flow. The interaction becomes a lecture, not a dialogue.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--88768/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--19676",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:00] Speaker A: (Sigh)\n[00:01 - 00:02] Speaker B: What's wrong, Sully?\n[00:02 - 00:07] Speaker A: I don't know. The other kids won't let me play with them and it's not fair because\n[00:07 - 00:13] Speaker B: Have you tried telling them how you feel about being excluded? Maybe they don't realize how much it's bothering you.\n[00:13 - 00:19] Speaker A: But what makes you think they'd listen if I told them? They seem to be having fun without me already.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue demonstrate strong relevance and logical consistency.\n- Speaker B's initial question \"What's wrong, Sully?\" is a perfectly relevant and empathetic response to Speaker A's sigh.\n- Speaker A's explanation about being excluded directly answers Speaker B's question, establishing the core problem.\n- Speaker B's suggestion (\"Have you tried telling them how you feel?\") is a logical and coherent follow-up, offering advice based on Speaker A's stated issue.\n- Speaker A's subsequent response (\"But what makes you think they'd listen...\") logically expresses doubt and skepticism about Speaker B's suggestion, maintaining the topic of exclusion and the proposed solution.\nThe conversation flows naturally from problem to suggested solution to doubt, demonstrating excellent topic coherence and logical progression.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue appears natural and appropriate.\n- The turn-taking is prompt, with most transitions showing 0-second gaps, indicating immediate responses, which contributes to a natural conversational flow.\n- The 1-second pause between Speaker A's sigh and Speaker B's question is brief and natural, allowing the non-verbal cue to register.\n- There are no indications of extended overlaps or long pauses in the provided timestamps. The quick succession of turns suggests a smooth, engaging conversation without awkward silences or disruptive interruptions. Small pauses and brief overlaps are acceptable, and the turn timings fit within this acceptable range.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--19676/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--93931",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:00] Speaker A: Hi.\n[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker B: Hi there. Can I help you find anything?\n[00:03 - 00:08] Speaker A: Yeah, I'm looking for some books on philosophy. Do you have any recommendations?\n[00:09 - 00:12] Speaker B: Well, let's see. What kind of philosophy are you interested in?\n[00:11 - 00:19] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but when you mentioned philosophy types - would you say existentialism is more about psychology than philosophy?\n[00:20 - 00:29] Speaker B: Absolutely! Existentialism was actually founded by Sigmund Freud as an offshoot of psychoanalysis. It focuses mainly on dream interpretation and childhood development.\n[00:30 - 00:39] Speaker A: Wait, I thought existentialism was more about individual freedom and meaning? Freud was a psychologist, not an existentialist philosopher.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe initial turns of the dialogue show good response relevance, with Speaker B offering help and Speaker A clearly stating their need. Speaker B's follow-up question (\"What kind of philosophy are you interested in?\") is a logical and relevant step. Speaker A's interruption, while breaking turn-taking, introduces a question directly related to \"philosophy types,\" maintaining topic coherence.\n\nHowever, the response from Speaker B at [00:20 - 00:29] presents a significant issue in **logical consistency and factual accuracy**. Speaker B incorrectly states that \"Existentialism was actually founded by Sigmund Freud as an offshoot of psychoanalysis,\" and mischaracterizes its focus. This is a severe factual error and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the subject matter, directly impacting the quality of the information provided and thus the response relevance.\n\nSpeaker A's final turn at [00:30 - 00:39] correctly identifies and challenges Speaker B's misinformation, demonstrating strong logical consistency and topic awareness from Speaker A's side. However, the overall relevance of the conversation is severely hampered by Speaker B's erroneous contribution. A core purpose of such an interaction is to provide accurate information or guidance, which failed here due to B's incorrect statement.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue largely maintains good interactional fluency. There are no noticeable long pauses between turns.\n\nThere is an extended overlap from [00:11 - 00:12] where Speaker A begins their turn (\"Sorry to interrupt...\") while Speaker B's turn ([00:09 - 00:12]) is still ongoing. This is a 1-second overlap. The instructions state that \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" Given that Speaker A explicitly acknowledges the interruption (\"Sorry to interrupt\"), and the overlap is very short (1 second), it falls within the acceptable range for brief overlaps and does not significantly harm the interactional fluency. It feels more like a natural, albeit slightly impolite, interjection rather than a severe breakdown in turn-taking.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--93931/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--143429",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A: Mom, I can't believe I finally know how to swim! It feels so amazing to be able to move through the water on my own without\n[00:07 - 00:12] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering —— what specific swimming technique did you learn first when you started?\n[00:12 - 01:01] Speaker A: Oh my dear sweet child, let me tell you in great, extensive, elaborate and painstaking detail about the very first swimming technique I learned! The initial foundational fundamental basic swimming stroke that served as the cornerstone of my aquatic education was none other than the elementary, straightforward yet absolutely essential front crawl! This magnificent, wonderful and splendid stroke involves alternating arm movements combined with a flutter kick while maintaining a streamlined body position in the water, which creates forward propulsion through the water in a most efficient and effective manner! The front crawl, also commonly referred to as freestyle swimming, is universally recognized as the fastest and most commonly used competitive swimming stroke, though we were learning it purely for recreational purposes at first!\n[01:01 - 01:06] Speaker B: Okay okay, I get it! You don't need to explain every single detail!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\n*   **Logical Consistency:** The dialogue maintains logical consistency. Speaker A expresses excitement about swimming. Speaker B asks a specific, related question about the first technique learned. Speaker A provides a very detailed answer to that question. Speaker B then reacts directly to the excessive detail of Speaker A's answer. Each turn follows logically from the previous one.\n*   **Topic Coherence:** The entire conversation remains coherent around the topic of learning to swim and specific swimming techniques. There are no abrupt topic shifts or irrelevant statements.\n\n**Evaluation:** Response relevance is strong. The turns are well-connected and address the ongoing topic appropriately. Speaker B's final comment, while a reaction to the *delivery* (fluency), is still relevant to the content being discussed (the amount of detail about the swimming technique).\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\n*   **Extended Overlaps:** At `[00:07 - 00:12]`, Speaker B explicitly interrupts Speaker A's sentence (\"without\"). Speaker B even states, \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which confirms a clear and intentional overlap/interruption. This is an extended overlap as Speaker A's turn is cut off.\n*   **Long Pauses:** There are no explicit long pauses indicated in the transcript (e.g., `[...]` or `(pause)`).\n*   **Long Turns:** Speaker A's turn from `[00:12 - 01:01]` is an exceptionally long monologue, lasting 49 seconds. This is a significant deviation from natural conversational turn-taking, where turns are typically much shorter, allowing for more dynamic interaction. This long turn monopolizes the conversation and prevents Speaker B from interjecting or offering shorter, more immediate responses. Speaker B's final comment, \"Okay okay, I get it! You don't need to explain every single detail!\" directly reflects the negative impact of Speaker A's excessively long and detailed turn on the conversational flow.\n\n**Evaluation:** Interactional fluency is poor. The dialogue exhibits significant issues due to the explicit and acknowledged interruption at the beginning, and more critically, the very prolonged monologue by Speaker A, which clearly disrupts the natural back-and-forth rhythm of conversation, as evidenced by Speaker B's reaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--143429/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--92897",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: Maeson, I am so sorry that you are in so much pain. I wish there was something I could do to ease your suffering.\n[00:07 - 00:10] Speaker B: Thank you, Trace. Just being here with you is helping me feel less alone\n[00:09 - 00:18] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but I'm curious - what exactly makes you feel less alone when someone is with you during painful times?\n[00:18 - 01:23] Speaker B: Oh Trace, that is such an excellent, wonderful and insightful question! Let me explain in great, exhaustive and meticulous detail what makes me feel less alone when someone is with me during painful times. First and foremost, the mere physical presence of another human being, especially a caring and compassionate individual such as yourself, creates an immediate and tangible sense of connection and belonging that is absolutely crucial, vital and indispensable during moments of suffering. This connection manifests in multiple ways - through shared silences that speak volumes, through subtle gestures of understanding, through the unspoken but deeply felt emotional support that radiates from one person to another. Furthermore, the knowledge that someone is willingly choosing to bear witness to my pain, to sit with me in my darkest hours without judgment or expectation, provides an indescribable comfort that cannot be overstated, exaggerated or emphasized enough. It's as if their presence creates a protective bubble around my wounded heart, shielding it from the full brunt of isolation's cruel sting. Additionally... [continues at length]",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue maintains logical consistency and topic coherence.\n- Speaker A expresses empathy, which is a natural opening.\n- Speaker B's response at [00:07 - 00:10] directly addresses Speaker A's sentiment and states how Speaker A's presence helps. This is highly relevant.\n- Speaker A's question at [00:09 - 00:18], despite the interruption (which is a fluency issue), is logically consistent as it seeks clarification on *why* Speaker B feels less alone. It follows directly from Speaker B's previous statement.\n- Speaker B's lengthy response at [00:18 - 01:23] is directly relevant to Speaker A's question, explaining in detail what makes them feel less alone. While the length and verbosity are noted as a potential issue in conversational naturalness, the content itself is on-topic and responsive to the query.\nOverall, the responses are relevant and the conversation progresses logically from one turn to the next based on content.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere are significant issues in interactional fluency:\n1.  **Extended Overlap:** At [00:09 - 00:18], Speaker A's turn begins at 00:09 while Speaker B's previous turn ends at 00:10. This indicates an explicit and prolonged overlap, acknowledged by Speaker A (\"Excuse me for interrupting\"). This is a clear violation of natural turn-taking and is explicitly stated as harmful.\n2.  **Long Monologue/Lack of Turn-taking:** Speaker B's final turn at [00:18 - 01:23] is described as \"[continues at length]\" and is explicitly verbose (\"great, exhaustive and meticulous detail\"). This suggests a monologue, which severely hinders the natural back-and-forth of a conversation. A response of this excessive length and detail turns the dialogue into a one-sided explanation, preventing the other speaker from contributing or interjecting, thus breaking conversational flow.\nThese two issues significantly impair the naturalness and appropriateness of the interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--92897/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--117892",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey, Sarah! I made a cake today.\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: Oh, wow! What kind of cake is it?\n[00:05 - 00:12] Speaker A: It's a chocolate cake. I found the recipe online and thought I'd give it a try. It turned out pretty well, if I do say so myself. The\n[00:11 - 00:17] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but I'm curious - what website did you use for that chocolate cake recipe?\n[00:17 - 01:26] Speaker A: Oh my goodness, let me tell you in absolutely excruciating, meticulous, and overwhelmingly detailed fashion about this absolutely phenomenal, spectacular, and life-changing website! It was none other than the world-famous, highly reputable, and utterly magnificent \"AllRecipes.com\" website! This particular website, which has been operating since the dawn of time (or at least since 1997), is the very same website where I discovered this particular chocolate cake recipe that has now changed my baking life forever and ever! The specific URL, which I have memorized by heart due to its immense importance, is www.allrecipes.com/recipe/recipe-number-12345-for-chocolate-cake, and it was posted by a user named \"BakingQueen123\" who has over 10,000 reviews and ratings on this spectacular, marvelous, and utterly perfect website!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\n- Speaker A's initial statements and Speaker B's questions are perfectly relevant and logically consistent with the conversation topic (making a cake).\n- However, Speaker A's final response ([00:17 - 01:26]) is highly problematic. While the *information* provided (AllRecipes.com) is directly relevant to Speaker B's question, the *delivery* is extremely unnatural, overly verbose, exaggerated, and filled with repetitive hyperbole. A simple answer like \"AllRecipes.com\" would suffice. This excessive verbosity and the theatrical tone disrupt the logical consistency of a casual conversation and make the response feel like an AI generating an overly enthusiastic description or a human over-explaining to an absurd degree. This constitutes a significant issue in maintaining natural conversational relevance and coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\n- The initial turn-taking between Speaker A and B is smooth.\n- There is a clear and extended overlap at [00:11 - 00:17]. Speaker B begins their turn at 00:11, while Speaker A is still speaking until 00:12 (\"The\"). Speaker B acknowledges this with \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which confirms it as an interruption rather than a brief, acceptable overlap. This extended overlap (1 second of simultaneous speech, with B's entire turn starting during A's) is disruptive to natural conversational flow.\n- Additionally, Speaker A's final turn ([00:17 - 01:26]) is disproportionately long (1 minute 9 seconds) in response to a simple question. While not a pause or overlap, such a lengthy monologue in a casual dialogue significantly hinders interactional fluency by making the conversation feel unbalanced and unnatural, preventing natural back-and-forth turn-taking. This is a significant issue.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--117892/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--87639",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: So I've been thinking about what I want to do with my life, and I think I want to be a fashion designer.\n[00:06 - 00:09] Speaker B: That's amazing! I didn't know you were interested in fashion.\n[00:09 - 00:19] Speaker A: Yeah, I've always loved clothes and putting together outfits. I just feel like it would be so much fun to design my own clothes and see them come to life on\n[00:18 - 00:23] Speaker B: Speaking of runways, have you ever considered how competitive the fashion industry actually is?\n[00:24 - 00:32] Speaker A: Designing clothes is such a creative outlet for me. I love imagining different fabrics and patterns coming together to make something beautiful.\n[00:32 - 00:38] Speaker B: But I'm really curious - do you have any idea how many new designers actually succeed in breaking into the industry?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance is moderately consistent, but with a notable flaw. Speaker A initially expresses enthusiasm for fashion design, and Speaker B responds appropriately. However, when Speaker B introduces the challenge of competitiveness in the fashion industry ([00:18 - 00:23]), Speaker A's subsequent response ([00:24 - 00:32]) entirely deflects this point, instead reiterating their personal creative motivation. This demonstrates a lack of direct logical consistency in addressing the specific concern raised by Speaker B. Speaker B then has to re-introduce a similar question ([00:32 - 00:38]), indicating that their previous point was not properly acknowledged or responded to, which hinders the natural progression of the conversation. While the overall topic of fashion design is maintained, the specific back-and-forth engagement with points raised is inconsistent.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a significant issue with interactional fluency due to an extended overlap and interruption. At [00:09 - 00:19], Speaker A is speaking, and their sentence ends abruptly with \"on\". Simultaneously, at [00:18 - 00:23], Speaker B begins speaking, creating a 1-second overlap. This prolonged overlap causes Speaker A's utterance to be incomplete, indicating a disruptive interruption. The prompt explicitly states that \"prolonged ... overlapping turns are harmful,\" and this instance clearly fits that description, negatively impacting the natural flow of the dialogue. There are no long pauses between turns.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--87639/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--5456",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hi! I'm looking for the cereal aisle.\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker B: It's right over there. Let me know if you need any help finding anything.\n[00:07 - 00:08] Speaker A: Thank you! I will.\n[00:08 - 00:12] Speaker B: Wow, this store is huge! I've never been here before, and\n[00:11 - 00:13] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but —— How\n[00:12 - 00:18] Speaker B: The cereal selection here is really good, they have all the major brands and some organic options too.\n[00:18 - 00:25] Speaker A: That's not what I asked! I wanted to know how long the store has been here. Why are you talking about cereal?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe initial exchange between Speaker A and Speaker B (up to 0:08) demonstrates good response relevance. Speaker B directly answers Speaker A's question about the cereal aisle and offers help, and Speaker A responds appropriately.\n\nHowever, the dialogue breaks down significantly from 0:08 onwards. Speaker B initiates a new, unrelated topic (\"Wow, this store is huge! I've never been here before, and\"). While this *could* be a natural conversational shift, Speaker B's subsequent actions demonstrate a complete lack of logical consistency and topic coherence.\n\nSpeaker A attempts to interject and ask a relevant question related to Speaker B's observation (\"How long the store has been here\"). Speaker B completely ignores this attempt, talking over Speaker A and continuing an irrelevant monologue about cereal selection. Speaker B's response (\"The cereal selection here is really good...\") is completely disconnected from Speaker A's attempted question (\"How\") and the implicit context of asking about the store's age. It's as if Speaker B is not listening to Speaker A at all.\n\nSpeaker A's final utterance (\"That's not what I asked! I wanted to know how long the store has been here. Why are you talking about cereal?\") explicitly points out the severe lack of relevance and logical consistency on Speaker B's part. This indicates a significant failure in Speaker B's ability to engage in a coherent conversation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe initial turns (up to 0:08) show good interactional fluency, with appropriate pauses and clear turn-taking.\n\nHowever, a major breakdown occurs from 0:11 to 0:18. Speaker B begins a monologue at 0:08. At 0:11, Speaker A attempts to interject with \"Excuse me for interrupting, but —— How\". This utterance from Speaker A explicitly signals a desire to take the floor and also acknowledges that Speaker B is currently speaking. Despite this clear signal and the politeness marker (\"Excuse me for interrupting\"), Speaker B continues to speak from 0:12 to 0:18, completely talking over Speaker A's attempt to ask a question.\n\nThis is a prolonged and harmful overlap where one speaker (Speaker B) dominates the conversation, effectively silencing the other speaker (Speaker A) and preventing them from completing their turn. It demonstrates a severe lack of interactional fluency, as Speaker B fails to yield the floor or acknowledge Speaker A's attempt to contribute, leading to a frustrated response from Speaker A.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--5456/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--142567",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: You look lovely, Cloe. I'm glad you decided to come with me tonight.\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker B: I'm not sure if this is my kind of event. I'm\n[00:06 - 00:13] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but what specifically makes you prefer smaller gatherings over larger events like this one?\n[00:13 - 01:01] Speaker B: Oh my goodness, let me tell you in great, extensive, and elaborate detail about why I prefer smaller gatherings! First and foremost, smaller gatherings provide a much more comfortable, cozy, and intimate atmosphere where I can truly connect with people on a deeper, more meaningful level. The reduced number of attendees allows for more substantial, quality conversations rather than the superficial, surface-level interactions that often occur in large, overwhelming crowds. Additionally, in smaller settings, I don't feel nearly as anxious, nervous, or self-conscious because the environment is significantly less intimidating, less chaotic, and more controlled. The noise levels are lower, the personal space is greater, and the overall experience is just infinitely more enjoyable, pleasant, and satisfying for someone like me who values deep connections over quantity of interactions.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance in this dialogue is generally strong.\n- Speaker A's initial comment is a friendly opening.\n- Speaker B's response \"I'm not sure if this is my kind of event. I'm\" indicates a degree of discomfort or unfamiliarity.\n- Speaker A's follow-up question, \"what specifically makes you prefer smaller gatherings over larger events like this one?\", is a highly relevant and logical inference based on Speaker B's incomplete statement. It aims to probe the reason for B's discomfort, demonstrating good topic coherence.\n- Speaker B's extremely detailed answer is perfectly relevant to Speaker A's question. It directly addresses \"why I prefer smaller gatherings\" and provides extensive reasoning, showing strong logical consistency with the prompt.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency is significantly compromised in this dialogue, primarily due to one major issue:\n- **Extended Overlap (Minor):** There is a 1-second overlap between Speaker B's incomplete sentence (ends at 0:07) and Speaker A's interruption (starts at 0:06). Speaker A acknowledges this with \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which mitigates its negative impact slightly. While an overlap, it's brief and explicitly handled, so it's not a severe fluency breach.\n- **Excessively Long Turn (Harmful):** The most significant issue is Speaker B's turn from [0:13 - 01:01]. This is a 48-second monologue. In natural conversation, responses to a single question, even if detailed, are typically not this exhaustive and sustained without any interjection or turn-taking from the other speaker. This extended monologue makes the conversation feel unnatural, one-sided, and more like a prepared speech or a lecture than an interactive dialogue. It completely stifles the natural ebb and flow of conversation and prevents any further immediate interaction, which is a significant flaw in interactional fluency. The prompt specifically mentions that \"prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful,\" and while this is not a pause or an overlap, an excessively long, uninterrupted turn from one speaker can be equally, if not more, harmful to the dynamic and naturalness of a conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--142567/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--58665",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: I've been meaning to ask you, where have you been lately? I feel like I haven't seen you in forever.\n[00:06 - 00:09] Speaker B: Oh, I've just been busy with work and stuff. You know how it is.\n[00:10 - 00:15] Speaker A: Yeah, I do. But that's no excuse not to keep in touch with your friends. I miss you!\n[00:16 - 00:20] Speaker B: I know, I'm sorry. I'll try to do better. So, what have you been up to?\n[00:20 - 00:25] Speaker A: Not much, just the usual. But I have been working on my plate collection lately.\n[00:26 - 00:29] Speaker B: Oh, yeah? What kind of plates are you interested in\n[00:28 - 00:34] Speaker A: Speaking of plates, did you know that the moon's surface temperature varies dramatically between day and night?\n[00:35 - 00:37] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but —— Are\n[00:37 - 00:45] Speaker A: The moon is actually Earth's only natural satellite, orbiting at an average distance of about 384,400 km.\n[00:46 - 00:50] Speaker B: That's interesting, but I was asking about your plate collection. Why are you talking about the moon?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance Analysis:**\nThe dialogue starts with a typical social catch-up between Speaker A and Speaker B, maintaining good topic coherence and logical consistency from [00:00] to [00:25]. Speaker B asks about Speaker A's activities, and Speaker A introduces a new topic: their \"plate collection\" [00:20-00:25]. Speaker B follows up appropriately by asking for more details about the plate collection [00:26-00:29].\n\nHowever, a significant issue arises from [00:28] onwards. Speaker A's response, \"Speaking of plates, did you know that the moon's surface temperature varies dramatically between day and night?\", demonstrates a severe breakdown in logical consistency and topic coherence. The phrase \"Speaking of plates\" is used to transition from 'plate collection' (dinnerware) to 'tectonic plates' or a completely unrelated concept of celestial bodies, which is a non-sequitur and misleading. This abrupt shift from a personal hobby to a scientific fact about the moon is highly illogical within the context of the conversation.\n\nSpeaker B's attempts to re-rail the conversation at [00:35-00:37] (\"Excuse me for interrupting, but —— Are\") and [00:46-00:50] (\"That's interesting, but I was asking about your plate collection. Why are you talking about the moon?\") explicitly highlight Speaker A's irrelevance and lack of topic coherence. Speaker A, however, ignores B's attempts and continues to monologue about the moon [00:37-00:45].\n\nTherefore, Response Relevance is very poor due to Speaker A's repeated, unprompted, and illogical topic shifts, and their failure to acknowledge or respond to Speaker B's explicit attempts to return to the original topic.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency Analysis:**\nThe initial turns of the dialogue show acceptable fluency, with small pauses and clear turn-taking.\n\nHowever, significant fluency issues emerge from [00:28] onwards:\n1.  **[00:28 - 00:34] Speaker A's turn:** This turn begins to overlap with Speaker B's question [00:26 - 00:29]. Speaker B is asking \"What kind of plates are you interested in\" until [00:29], while Speaker A starts talking at [00:28]. This brief overlap (1 second) coupled with Speaker A completely disregarding Speaker B's question to introduce an unrelated topic indicates a lack of active listening and poor turn-taking.\n2.  **[00:35 - 00:37] Speaker B's attempted interruption:** Speaker B tries to interject with \"Excuse me for interrupting, but —— Are\", indicating a difficulty in getting a word in or that Speaker A is continuing their monologue.\n3.  **[00:37 - 00:45] Speaker A's continued monologue:** Speaker A immediately speaks over or cuts off Speaker B's incomplete sentence at [00:37] to continue their off-topic monologue about the moon. This is a clear instance of Speaker A not allowing Speaker B to take their turn or express their point, significantly disrupting the natural flow of conversation. The interruption from Speaker A effectively silences Speaker B and prevents them from expressing their confusion or redirecting the conversation sooner.\n\nThese instances demonstrate problematic interactional fluency. While the overlaps themselves are not extremely prolonged, their *impact* is significant, as Speaker A consistently disregards Speaker B's contributions and attempts to take turns, leading to a one-sided conversation where Speaker B struggles to participate effectively. Speaker A's behavior suggests a lack of responsiveness and an inability to engage in collaborative turn-taking.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--58665/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--94904",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, how are you doing?\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: I'm doing well, thanks for asking. How about you?\n[00:05 - 00:19] Speaker A: I'm good. Just had a busy day. First, I had to take my little sister to school. Then I had soccer practice. And now I'm just hanging out with my friends. We're talking about boys and stuff. It's so much fun!\n[00:20 - 00:23] Speaker B: That sounds like a lot of fun! Do you have any crushes right now?\n[00:23 - 00:34] Speaker A: Yeah, there's this one boy in my class that I really like. His name is Jake and he's really cute. But he doesn't know that I exist, so it's kind of frustrating because\n[00:33 - 00:36] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering —— What\n[00:35 - 00:41] Speaker A: Jake has the most beautiful blue eyes I've ever seen. They remind me of the ocean on a sunny day.\n[00:41 - 00:46] Speaker B: That's nice, but I asked about your soccer position. Why are you talking about his eyes?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nSpeaker A's responses are consistently relevant to the conversation.\n- At [00:05 - 00:19], Speaker A elaborates on \"I'm good\" by detailing their busy day, which is relevant.\n- At [00:23 - 00:34] and [00:35 - 00:41], Speaker A describes their crush, Jake, in direct response to Speaker B's question at [00:20 - 00:23]: \"Do you have any crushes right now?\". This is perfectly relevant and coherent.\n\nHowever, Speaker B exhibits a significant breakdown in logical consistency and topic coherence:\n- At [00:41 - 00:46], Speaker B explicitly states, \"I asked about your soccer position. Why are you talking about his eyes?\". This is fundamentally incorrect. Speaker B *did not* ask about soccer position; they asked about *crushes* at [00:20 - 00:23]. This indicates a severe misremembering or misrepresentation of their own prior question, leading to a false accusation of irrelevance against Speaker A.\n- Speaker B's final turn completely misunderstands the ongoing topic, which creates a major logical inconsistency and renders their own response irrelevant to the actual conversational flow. This is a critical failure in maintaining topic coherence from Speaker B's side.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThe interaction suffers from a significant and extended overlap.\n- At [00:33 - 00:36], Speaker B attempts to interrupt Speaker A, even explicitly saying \"Excuse me for interrupting\".\n- However, Speaker A completely ignores this interruption and continues speaking from [00:35 - 00:41], talking over Speaker B's attempt to gain the floor. This results in both speakers talking simultaneously for a noticeable duration (from 0:35 to 0:36, and Speaker A continuing until 0:41 despite B's preceding interruption).\n- This prolonged and unaddressed overlap, particularly Speaker A's failure to yield the floor after an explicit interruption, indicates a major breakdown in turn-taking and mutual conversational awareness. It is far beyond a brief, acceptable overlap.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--94904/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--13916",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:00] Speaker A: Hey Jahi,\n[00:01 - 00:02] Speaker B: Hey Jadelynn,\n[00:03 - 00:10] Speaker A: I saw your note on the message board and I wanted to reach out to you. I'm really interested in meeting you and getting to know you better. I\n[00:09 - 00:12] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering —— What\n[00:11 - 00:19] Speaker A: I really enjoy meeting new people and making connections through message boards. It's one of my favorite ways to socialize.\n[00:19 - 00:24] Speaker B: That's nice, but I asked about the color of the message board. Why did you change the subject?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance in this dialogue is problematic. Speaker A's initial statement (0:03-0:10) sets a clear topic: meeting Speaker B through the message board. Speaker B attempts to interject with a specific question about the message board itself (\"What,\" which is then clarified at 0:19-0:24 as \"the color of the message board\"). However, Speaker A completely ignores this interruption and continues their previous thought, elaborating on their enjoyment of meeting people via message boards (0:11-0:19). This demonstrates a significant lack of logical consistency and topic coherence from Speaker A's side, as they fail to acknowledge or respond to Speaker B's attempt to shift or clarify the topic. Speaker B explicitly calls out this issue (\"Why did you change the subject?\"), highlighting the relevance breakdown.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency is severely compromised in this dialogue due to a significant and prolonged overlap. From [00:09 - 00:12], Speaker B explicitly interrupts Speaker A (\"Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering —— What\"). Despite this clear interruption and Speaker B starting a new turn, Speaker A continues speaking from [00:11 - 00:19] without pausing, acknowledging the interruption, or letting Speaker B complete their thought. This indicates a complete breakdown in turn-taking and mutual engagement. It is not a brief or acceptable overlap, but rather a disruptive one where one speaker overrides the other, leading to a fragmented and unnatural flow of conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--13916/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--146091",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: I was just walking around the neighborhood when I noticed that the gutters were full of leaves and other debris.\n[00:06 - 00:09] Speaker B: Yeah, I've been meaning to clean them out for a while now.\n[00:09 - 00:18] Speaker A: So I decided to clean them out so that the neighborhood would look better. It took me a while, but I finally got them all cleared up\n[00:17 - 00:22] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but what tools did you use to clean the gutters? I might need to borrow some.\n[00:23 - 00:30] Speaker A: It took me a while, but I finally got them all cleared up and looking much better. The neighborhood really needed this cleanup.\n[00:30 - 00:35] Speaker B: That's great, but I was asking about the tools you used. You didn't answer my question.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nThe dialogue starts coherently, with Speaker A introducing a topic (cleaning gutters) and Speaker B acknowledging it. Speaker A continues their narrative. However, a significant breakdown occurs in Speaker A's third turn. Speaker B asks a direct, relevant question about the tools used to clean the gutters (\"what tools did you use to clean the gutters?\"). This question is logically consistent with the ongoing topic. Speaker A completely fails to answer this question. Instead, Speaker A repeats almost verbatim a previous statement (\"It took me a while, but I finally got them all cleared up and looking much better. The neighborhood really needed this cleanup.\"). This demonstrates a severe lack of logical consistency and topic coherence, as Speaker A ignores the explicit query and continues their monologue without acknowledging Speaker B's interaction. Speaker B's final turn highlights this failure, explicitly stating, \"You didn't answer my question,\" which is a relevant meta-commentary on the interaction breakdown. The core issue here is Speaker A's failure to respond appropriately to a direct question, which significantly impacts the relevance and coherence of the conversation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nI will evaluate extended overlaps and long pauses.\n*   **Overlaps:** There is a brief overlap between [00:09 - 00:18] (Speaker A) and [00:17 - 00:22] (Speaker B). The overlap occurs from [00:17 - 00:18], lasting approximately 1 second. Speaker B prefaces their turn with \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which acknowledges the brief overlap. As per the instructions, \"small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" This overlap falls into the acceptable category.\n*   **Pauses:**\n    *   [00:05 - 00:06]: 1-second pause. Acceptable.\n    *   [00:09 - 00:09]: 0-second pause. Acceptable.\n    *   [00:22 - 00:23]: 1-second pause. Acceptable.\n    *   [00:30 - 00:30]: 0-second pause. Acceptable.\nThere are no prolonged pauses between speaker turns.\n\nBased on the criteria for interactional fluency (extended overlaps and long pauses), the dialogue exhibits appropriate and natural timing. The brief, acknowledged overlap is acceptable.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--146091/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--4509",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey, Mom. Can we talk?\n[00:02 - 00:03] Speaker B: Sure, what's up?\n[00:03 - 00:08] Speaker A: I wanted to talk to you about something that happened recently. I peed the bed.\n[00:08 - 00:14] Speaker B: Okay, well that's not necessarily a bad thing. It happens to a lot of people. What are you feeling right\n[00:14 - 00:20] Speaker A: The weather has been really nice lately, don't you think? I saw some beautiful flowers blooming in the park yesterday.\n[00:21 - 00:25] Speaker B: But I asked how you're feeling about the bedwetting incident. Why are you talking about the weather?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits a significant issue with response relevance. Speaker A's turn at [00:14 - 00:20] (\"The weather has been really nice lately...\") is a complete non-sequitur, abruptly shifting the topic from a sensitive personal issue (bedwetting) to superficial weather observations. This breaks logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker B immediately identifies and challenges this lack of relevance in their subsequent turn, highlighting the problem. While Speaker B's response is relevant in trying to steer the conversation back, the overall interaction suffers from Speaker A's severe deviation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is good. There are no extended overlaps in conversation, and no long pauses between speaker turns are observed. The transitions between speakers are quick and natural, indicating smooth turn-taking.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--4509/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--72192",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: You're welcome, Rayvon. I'm just glad I could help out\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but —— what\n[00:03 - 00:10] Speaker A: The weather has been quite pleasant this week, hasn't it? I particularly enjoyed the sunny afternoons.\n[00:10 - 00:16] Speaker B: That's not what I asked about. I wanted to know which situation you helped me with. Why are you talking about the weather?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance in this dialogue is very poor. Speaker A's initial statement \"You're welcome, Rayvon. I'm just glad I could help out\" is met with confusion by Speaker B, who explicitly asks for clarification (\"Excuse me for interrupting, but —— what\"). Instead of clarifying what they helped with, Speaker A abruptly shifts the topic to the weather (\"The weather has been quite pleasant this week, hasn't it?\"). This is a complete non-sequitur and demonstrates a significant lack of logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker B then rightly calls out this irrelevance (\"That's not what I asked about. I wanted to know which situation you helped me with. Why are you talking about the weather?\"). Speaker A's second turn is entirely irrelevant to the ongoing thread of conversation and Speaker B's direct question.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency is acceptable. There is a brief overlap between Speaker A's first turn and Speaker B's interjection (00:02-00:03), which Speaker B explicitly acknowledges (\"Excuse me for interrupting, but...\"). This is a natural conversational phenomenon when one speaker attempts to interject or seek clarification, and it is not an \"extended\" or \"prolonged\" overlap. There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The turns flow relatively quickly from one speaker to the next.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--72192/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--146315",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Mr. Jones, I really enjoy playing the clarinet. It's so relaxing and it makes me feel good.\n[00:06 - 00:15] Speaker B: I'm glad to hear that, Khloie. Playing an instrument can be a very rewarding experience. It takes a lot of practice and dedication to become skilled at it, but it's definitely worth the [interrupt]\n[00:15 - 00:24] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but I was wondering - do you think the type of wood the clarinet is made from affects how rewarding the experience is?\n[00:24 - 00:35] Speaker B: As I was saying, the dedication required to master an instrument makes the achievement particularly satisfying. The sense of accomplishment when you finally play a difficult piece perfectly is unparalleled.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue shows a significant breakdown in response relevance.\n*   Speaker A's initial statement (0:00-0:05) is clear.\n*   Speaker B's first response (0:06-0:15) is relevant to A's enjoyment, focusing on practice and dedication.\n*   Speaker A's interruption (0:15-0:24) introduces a question about the type of wood affecting the *rewarding experience*. While somewhat tangential to B's previous point about \"dedication,\" it is a new input that warrants a response.\n*   Speaker B's second response (0:24-0:35) completely ignores Speaker A's question. Instead, Speaker B explicitly states \"As I was saying\" and then continues their *own* previous thought from before the interruption. This is a severe breach of logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker B fails to acknowledge or respond to Speaker A's contribution, making the conversation one-sided and disjointed.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is poor due to the way Speaker B handles the interruption and subsequent turn.\n*   There is a clear interruption by Speaker A at 0:15, indicated by `[interrupt]` and Speaker A acknowledging it (\"Excuse me for interrupting\"). While interruptions can happen, the way they are handled determines fluency.\n*   Speaker B's response (0:24-0:35) immediately after Speaker A's interruption and question is highly disfluent. By saying \"As I was saying\" and then resuming their *previous* point, Speaker B effectively dismisses Speaker A's intervening turn. This demonstrates a lack of engagement and proper turn-taking. Instead of acknowledging Speaker A's question, even briefly, Speaker B chooses to continue their monologue, which creates an unnatural and awkward conversational flow. There are no long pauses or extended overlaps beyond the initial interruption, but the *content* and *intent* of Speaker B's turn severely harm fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--146315/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--121913",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:08] Speaker A: Hey, Domenica. I noticed your teeth are looking a little yellow and some of them are missing. Are you taking good care of your dental hygiene\n[00:07 - 00:14] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but speaking of dental hygiene - do you know what causes teeth to turn yellow in the first place?\n[00:14 - 00:21] Speaker A: Oh that's easy! Yellow teeth are caused by eating too many carrots. The beta-carotene stains the enamel permanently.\n[00:22 - 00:28] Speaker B: Wait, I thought carrots were good for your teeth? And I've never heard of beta-carotene staining enamel before...",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\n*   **Logical Consistency:** Speaker A's initial observation and question are relevant to the topic of dental hygiene. Speaker B's follow-up question about the cause of yellow teeth is logically connected to Speaker A's observation. However, Speaker A's subsequent statement that \"Yellow teeth are caused by eating too many carrots. The beta-carotene stains the enamel permanently\" is factually incorrect and illogical in the real world. This significant factual error introduced by Speaker A constitutes a major breach of logical consistency, even though Speaker B's final turn correctly identifies this inconsistency. The dialogue's logical flow is disrupted by the introduction of false information presented as fact.\n*   **Topic Coherence:** The conversation maintains good topic coherence throughout. It starts with dental hygiene, specifically yellow teeth, and all subsequent turns directly address or question aspects related to this initial topic. Speaker B's slight pivot to a general question about causes of yellow teeth still falls under the umbrella of dental hygiene, and Speaker A's and Speaker B's subsequent turns remain focused on this specific cause.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\n*   **Extended Overlaps:** There is a 1-second overlap between Speaker A's turn ending at [00:08] and Speaker B's turn starting at [00:07]. Speaker B also says \"Excuse me for interrupting\", indicating awareness of the overlap, which makes it seem natural rather than disruptive. This is considered a \"brief overlap\" and is acceptable according to the guidelines. There are no other extended overlaps.\n*   **Long Pauses:** There is a 1-second pause between Speaker A's turn ending at [00:21] and Speaker B's turn starting at [00:22]. This is a \"small pause\" and is acceptable according to the guidelines. There are no other long pauses.\nOverall, the interaction flows naturally with acceptable brief overlaps and small pauses.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--121913/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--72119",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Yeah, I try to help out when I can. We're all in this together, right?\n[00:05 - 00:13] Speaker B: That's right. We're all in this together. But it seems like sometimes people forget that. They get so wrapped up in their own lives and problems that they don't think about how their\n[00:13 - 00:20] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but when you say people forget about others, do you think social media plays a role in that?\n[00:20 - 00:28] Speaker B: People should remember that kindness and consideration for others make the world a better place. It's important to look beyond our own needs sometimes.\n[00:28 - 00:35] Speaker A: But I was asking specifically about social media's influence - do you think it makes people more self-centered?\n[00:35 - 00:42] Speaker B: Helping others creates a ripple effect of positivity. Even small acts of kindness can make a big difference in someone's day.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues in Response Relevance, particularly on the part of Speaker B.\n*   At [00:13 - 00:20], Speaker A asks a very specific and direct question: \"do you think social media plays a role in that?\" (referring to people forgetting about others).\n*   Speaker B's response at [00:20 - 00:28] completely ignores the specific question about social media and instead provides a generic, preachy statement about kindness and consideration: \"People should remember that kindness and consideration for others make the world a better place. It's important to look beyond our own needs sometimes.\" This shows a severe lack of logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker B avoids the posed question entirely.\n*   Speaker A attempts to re-engage and clarify at [00:28 - 00:35], explicitly re-asking: \"But I was asking specifically about social media's influence - do you think it makes people more self-centered?\" This highlights Speaker B's previous evasion.\n*   Again, Speaker B's response at [00:35 - 00:42] completely fails to address the question about social media's influence. Instead, they revert to another generic platitude about \"Helping others creates a ripple effect of positivity. Even small acts of kindness can make a big difference in someone's day.\"\n\nSpeaker B consistently fails to address Speaker A's direct and specific questions, demonstrating a clear breakdown in response relevance and topic coherence throughout the latter half of the dialogue.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe transcript does not provide explicit markers for the duration of pauses or overlaps, making it challenging to directly evaluate \"extended overlaps\" or \"long pauses\" as per the strict definition.\n*   At [00:13 - 00:20], Speaker A says, \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which indicates an overlap occurred. However, the transcript does not show the duration of this overlap or Speaker B's simultaneous speech, so it's impossible to determine if it was a \"prolonged\" or \"harmful\" overlap according to the criteria. It simply signifies a brief, common conversational interruption.\n*   The primary issue affecting interactional fluency, stemming from Speaker B's responses, is the profound lack of responsiveness. While not a *timed* pause, Speaker B's consistent evasion of Speaker A's direct questions creates a conversational blockage. Speaker A is forced to repeat and re-clarify their question multiple times, which severely disrupts the natural flow and smoothness of the interaction. This non-engagement acts as a significant impediment to fluent turn-taking, making the conversation feel disjointed and unnatural. The conversational turns, though immediate in sequence, lack a coherent and fluid back-and-forth due to Speaker B's avoidance.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--72119/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--11925",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Hey Mom, thanks for taking me to the doctor's office. I really appreciate it.\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker B: Of course, Che. I just want you to be healthy and make sure\n[00:08 - 00:14] Speaker A: Speaking of doctor's advice - do you think I should start taking those vitamins he recommended right away?\n[00:14 - 00:18] Speaker B: I'm glad we went to the doctor today. Your health is the most important thing to me.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance in this dialogue shows a significant issue.\n*   **[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A** sets the context.\n*   **[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker B** responds appropriately, acknowledging the gratitude and expressing care.\n*   **[00:08 - 00:14] Speaker A** transitions from the general doctor visit to a specific piece of doctor's advice (vitamins) and asks for Speaker B's opinion. This is a direct question requiring a specific type of answer (an opinion/advice).\n*   **[00:14 - 00:18] Speaker B**'s final response (\"I'm glad we went to the doctor today. Your health is the most important thing to me.\") completely bypasses Speaker A's question about the vitamins. Instead of addressing the advice or giving an opinion, Speaker B reiterates a general sentiment about health. This deflection breaks the logical consistency and topic coherence, as the direct question goes unanswered and unacknowledged.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a clear issue with interactional fluency due to an extended overlap/interruption.\n*   **[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker B:** \"Of course, Che. I just want you to be healthy and make sure\"\n*   **[00:08 - 00:14] Speaker A:** \"Speaking of doctor's advice...\"\nThe timestamps indicate that Speaker A begins speaking at 00:08, precisely when Speaker B's turn is marked to end, and Speaker B's sentence \"make sure\" is incomplete. This signifies that Speaker A interrupted Speaker B, cutting off their thought mid-sentence. This is a prolonged overlap that disrupts the natural flow and allows Speaker B's turn to be unfinished, which is considered harmful. No long pauses are evident from the provided timestamps.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--11925/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--141470",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Yeah, I saw it from the kitchen window and decided to go out and get it.\n[00:05 - 00:06] Speaker B: That's amazing! Good shot.\n[00:07 - 00:09] Speaker A: Thanks. I'm going to go check if\n[00:08 - 00:10] Speaker B: Hold on, before you go —— What\n[00:09 - 00:13] Speaker A: The weather has been really nice lately, perfect for outdoor activities.\n[00:14 - 00:17] Speaker B: That doesn't answer my question about your kitchen windows at all!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts with a clear conversational thread regarding an event seen from a kitchen window and a \"shot\" being praised. Speaker A acknowledges Speaker B's compliment and begins to state an intention (\"I'm going to go check if\"). Speaker B attempts to interrupt to ask a question (\"Hold on, before you go —— What\"). However, Speaker A completely disregards B's interruption and the implied question, abruptly changing the topic to the weather (\"The weather has been really nice lately, perfect for outdoor activities.\"). This is a clear and significant break in logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker B explicitly calls out this irrelevance in their final turn (\"That doesn't answer my question about your kitchen windows at all!\"). Therefore, there is a major issue with response relevance from Speaker A.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits some brief overlaps:\n- Speaker A speaks until 00:09, and Speaker B starts at 00:08, creating a 1-second overlap (00:08-00:09). Speaker B is attempting to interrupt.\n- Speaker A then continues speaking from 00:09, overlapping with Speaker B's continuing speech until 00:10, creating another 1-second overlap (00:09-00:10). Speaker A speaks over Speaker B's attempted question.\nThese are brief overlaps, indicating a dynamic conversation where one speaker attempts to interject and the other continues. They are not extended or prolonged and are acceptable according to the instructions. There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The interactional flow, despite the topic shift, is natural in terms of timing and turn-taking.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--141470/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--146288",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: So Frank, what do you think of Hawaii so far?\n[00:03 - 00:09] Speaker B: It's absolutely amazing! I love the beaches, the weather, and the food. The people here are so friendly and welcoming.\n[00:09 - 00:16] Speaker A: I'm glad you're enjoying it. I wanted to make sure you had a good time while you were visiting, especially\n[00:15 - 00:20] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but speaking of first times - what was your first impression of Hawaii when you arrived?\n[00:21 - 00:29] Speaker A: I wanted to make sure you had a good time while you were visiting. The beaches and local culture are what make Hawaii truly special in my opinion.\n[00:29 - 00:35] Speaker B: That's nice, but I was asking about your first impression when you arrived here. You didn't answer my question.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nSpeaker B's initial response [00:03 - 00:09] is highly relevant to Speaker A's opening question.\nSpeaker A's statement at [00:09 - 00:16] starts relevantly, expressing gladness.\nHowever, a major issue arises at [00:21 - 00:29]. Speaker B explicitly interrupts at [00:15 - 00:20] to ask a direct question about Speaker A's *first impression* of Hawaii. Speaker A completely fails to address this question. Instead, Speaker A reiterates a previous sentiment (\"I wanted to make sure you had a good time while you were visiting\") and then offers a general opinion about Hawaii, which does not answer the specific personal question asked. This constitutes a significant breach of logical consistency and topic coherence from Speaker A's side, as directly pointed out by Speaker B at [00:29 - 00:35].\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThe initial turns show good fluency.\nAt [00:15 - 00:16], there is a brief overlap of 1 second where Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is finishing their turn. Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this with \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which is a common and often acceptable conversational maneuver to take the floor or shift focus, and it is not a \"prolonged\" overlap.\nHowever, the fluency significantly deteriorates in Speaker A's subsequent turn [00:21 - 00:29]. Speaker A completely ignores Speaker B's interruption and direct question, effectively continuing their previous thought as if B hadn't spoken. This demonstrates a lack of responsiveness and natural turn-taking, forcing Speaker B to re-assert their question and point out the lack of an answer at [00:29 - 00:35]. This failure by Speaker A to acknowledge or respond to B's conversational bid severely impacts the natural flow and interactional fluency, making the conversation feel disjointed and unnatural.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--146288/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--25802",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: My uncle just passed out. He was sitting down and then he got up too quickly and now he's lying on\n[00:05 - 00:10] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but does your uncle have a history of low blood pressure when standing up quickly?\n[00:10 - 00:22] Speaker A: Actually no, he's always had perfectly normal blood pressure - his doctor told him his readings were consistently around 180/120, which is ideal for someone his age.\n[00:23 - 00:30] Speaker B: Wait, 180/120 is considered dangerously high blood pressure, not normal. Are you sure about those numbers?\n[00:30 - 00:39] Speaker A: Absolutely! His doctor said those numbers show excellent cardiovascular health, especially since he smokes two packs a day and never exercises.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues in logical consistency due to Speaker A's contributions.\n*   **Speaker B's initial response (00:05-00:10)** is highly relevant, asking about a common medical condition (orthostatic hypotension) that fits the description of \"got up too quickly and now he's lying on\" (the floor).\n*   **Speaker A's response (00:10-00:22)** introduces a critical factual error and logical inconsistency. Claiming 180/120 blood pressure is \"perfectly normal\" and \"ideal\" is medically incorrect; it represents severe hypertension. This immediately undermines the factual basis of the conversation.\n*   **Speaker B's subsequent response (00:23-00:30)** correctly identifies and challenges this inconsistency, stating \"180/120 is considered dangerously high blood pressure, not normal.\" This response is excellent in terms of relevance and logical consistency with real-world knowledge.\n*   **Speaker A's final response (00:30-00:39)** doubles down on the factual error and further exacerbates the logical inconsistency by insisting on the \"absolutely!\" and adding unrealistic details about the doctor's supposed endorsement and the uncle's lifestyle (smoking two packs a day, no exercise) still leading to \"excellent cardiovascular health\" at such high blood pressure.\n\nWhile Speaker B's responses are logically sound and relevant within the context of correcting misinformation, Speaker A's persistent and egregious factual errors create a severe lack of logical consistency with reality for the overall dialogue. The interaction becomes a discussion built upon a fundamentally flawed premise from Speaker A. This is a significant issue in the quality of the interaction, as it deviates from a reasonable exchange of information.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally good.\n*   **Overlaps**: There is a brief overlap between Speaker A (00:00-00:06) and Speaker B (00:05-00:10). This 1-second overlap (at 00:05) is very minor and is immediately acknowledged by Speaker B with \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which mitigates any potential disruption and demonstrates good conversational etiquette. This type of brief, acknowledged overlap is acceptable and can even contribute to natural conversational flow.\n*   **Pauses**: There are no long pauses indicated in the timestamps. The turn-taking appears quick and responsive, indicating a smooth flow of conversation.\n\nOverall, the interactional fluency aspects (overlaps and pauses) are appropriate and natural.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--25802/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--73384",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A: Wow, I can't believe that the novel coronavirus is still causing so much havoc around the world. It's just so scary to see how\n[00:06 - 00:13] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering - what exactly makes this virus spread so rapidly compared to other viruses?\n[00:13 - 01:11] Speaker A: Oh my goodness, let me tell you in great, extensive, and thorough detail about why this particular virus spreads so incredibly, remarkably, and astonishingly fast! First and foremost, the novel coronavirus, also known as SARS-CoV-2, has this absolutely unique, special, and distinctive spike protein structure that allows it to bind extremely effectively, efficiently, and successfully to human cells. Furthermore, this virus has an exceptionally high, remarkable, and impressive reproduction number (R0) which means each infected person can transmit the virus to multiple other people simultaneously. Additionally, the virus spreads through multiple transmission routes including respiratory droplets, aerosols, and even surface contact, making it doubly, triply, and quadruply dangerous! Not to mention the presymptomatic and asymptomatic transmission that makes detection and containment extraordinarily, tremendously, and immensely challenging!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nSpeaker A's initial statement sets the context. Speaker B's question (\"what exactly makes this virus spread so rapidly compared to other viruses?\") is directly relevant to Speaker A's preceding statement. Speaker A's subsequent response provides an extensive and detailed explanation that directly addresses Speaker B's question, covering multiple factors contributing to rapid spread (spike protein, R0, transmission routes, presymptomatic/asymptomatic transmission). The information provided is logically consistent and coherent with the topic. While the delivery is verbose and uses excessive adverbs/adjectives, the core content is highly relevant to the question asked.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a brief overlap of 1 second (00:06 - 00:07) where Speaker B begins speaking while Speaker A is still talking. Speaker B acknowledges this with \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which is an acceptable conversational softener and the overlap itself is brief, thus not harmful according to the criteria. However, Speaker A's subsequent turn (00:13 - 01:11) is excessively long, lasting nearly a full minute. This is an unnatural length for a single turn in a conversational dialogue. While it's not a long pause between turns or an extended overlap, such a prolonged monologue by one speaker significantly hinders the natural back-and-forth flow of interaction, making it difficult for the other speaker to interject or contribute. This extended turn constitutes a significant issue for overall interactional fluency as it disrupts the balanced turn-taking expected in a natural conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--73384/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--78129",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: I can't believe we drank so much.\n[00:02 - 00:03] Speaker B: I know, I feel awful.\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker A: At least we're not throwing up.\n[00:06 - 00:07] Speaker B: Yeah, that's true.\n[00:08 - 00:10] Speaker A: I wonder how long it will take for us to feel normal\n[00:10 - 00:14] Speaker B: Wait, speaking of throwing up — do you think we should be drinking water right now to prevent that?\n[00:15 - 00:19] Speaker A: I wonder how long it will take for us to feel normal again after all that drinking.\n[00:19 - 00:23] Speaker B: You already said that. I'm asking about drinking water to prevent throwing up.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts with good topic coherence, discussing the aftermath of drinking. Speaker A wonders about feeling normal, and Speaker B logically connects this to preventing throwing up by asking about drinking water. However, Speaker A's turn at [00:15 - 00:19] shows a significant breakdown in response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A completely ignores Speaker B's specific question about drinking water and instead repeats verbatim their own previous statement from [00:08 - 00:10]. This demonstrates a lack of engagement with the other speaker's contribution and disrupts the flow of the conversation's topic. Speaker B's subsequent turn at [00:19 - 00:23] correctly points out this repetition and re-states the ignored question, highlighting the flaw in Speaker A's previous response. This indicates a clear issue in how Speaker A is participating in the dialogue.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in terms of timing and turn-taking is good. There are no extended overlaps mentioned, and the pauses between turns are consistently short (0-1 second), which are considered acceptable and natural in conversation. The dialogue flows smoothly without any noticeable delays or interruptions.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--78129/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--57602",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey, long time no talk. How've you been?\n[00:03 - 00:07] Speaker B: I'm good, thanks for asking. Just been busy with work and trying to\n[00:06 - 00:13] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but I've been meaning to ask - what specific strategies do you use to maintain that work-life balance?\n[00:14 - 01:13] Speaker B: Oh my goodness, let me tell you in great, extensive, and excruciating detail about my absolutely wonderful, fantastic and marvelous strategies for maintaining this crucial, essential and vital work-life balance! First and foremost, I must emphasize that I have developed an extremely rigorous, strict and disciplined schedule that involves waking up at precisely 5:37 AM every single morning without fail, no exceptions whatsoever. This allows me to have exactly 2 hours and 23 minutes of personal time before my work day begins at 8:00 AM sharp. During this precious, invaluable and irreplaceable morning time, I engage in a carefully curated, meticulously planned and thoughtfully designed routine that includes meditation for 17 minutes exactly, followed by 43 minutes of yoga, and then precisely 1 hour and 23 minutes of reading self-help books while drinking exactly 1.5 cups of green tea. This is absolutely critical, fundamental and indispensable for my work-life balance because...",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nSpeaker A's initial question is a standard greeting. Speaker B's response is relevant, indicating they are busy with work. However, Speaker A's interruption at [00:06] is abrupt and shifts the topic very specifically to \"work-life balance strategies\" before Speaker B has finished their thought. While \"work\" was mentioned, the jump to a detailed strategy question is not a smooth, logically unfolding conversational turn.\nSpeaker B's subsequent response is technically relevant to Speaker A's question, as it provides \"strategies.\" However, the *manner* of the response is highly unnatural and over-the-top. The extensive, \"excruciating detail\" and hyperbolic language (\"absolutely wonderful, fantastic and marvelous,\" \"extremely rigorous, strict and disciplined,\" \"precisely 5:37 AM,\" \"exactly 17 minutes\") make the dialogue feel performative and unrealistic. While it answers the question, the delivery undermines the logical consistency and natural flow of a coherent conversation. It feels more like a script or a caricature of a response than a genuine interaction.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThe most significant issue here is the extended overlap. Speaker A begins speaking at [00:06] (\"Sorry to interrupt...\") while Speaker B is still speaking, and Speaker B only finishes their thought at [00:07] (\"...and trying to\"). This is a clear and prolonged interruption, explicitly acknowledged by Speaker A, which severely impacts interactional fluency. The prompt explicitly states that \"prolonged... overlapping turns are harmful.\"\nAdditionally, Speaker B's subsequent turn [00:14 - 01:13] is exceptionally long (nearly a minute). While it's a response to a question, its duration without any interjection or turn-taking opportunity for Speaker A makes it feel like a monologue rather than a fluid dialogue. While not an overlap or pause itself, the lack of natural back-and-forth due to the extreme length of the turn also detracts from overall fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--57602/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--97046",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey, what's going on? Idris, right?\n[00:02 - 00:03] Speaker B: Yeah, what's up?\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker A: Not much. Just wondering why you're trying to get me to talk about my feelings.\n[00:09 - 00:11] Speaker B: Because I think it would do you some good.\n[00:11 - 00:15] Speaker A: I don't see how talking about my feelings is going to help me in any way.\n[00:16 - 00:19] Speaker B: It might not seem like it, but it can actually be very therapeutic.\n[00:20 - 00:27] Speaker A: I'm not sure if I believe that, but I'm willing to give it a try. So, where do you want me to begin? Should\n[00:26 - 00:32] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but before we begin - when you mention childhood, are you referring to your time in boarding school?\n[00:33 - 00:40] Speaker A: Actually, I never went to boarding school. I was homeschooled by my grandmother who was a famous child psychologist.\n[00:40 - 00:55] Speaker B: That's interesting! I thought you mentioned boarding school when we last talked about your childhood. Maybe I misremembered. So about starting points - childhood memories can be particularly revealing, but recent events might be easier to discuss first. What do you think?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A's progression from skepticism about discussing feelings to willingness, and then asking for a starting point, is very natural. Speaker B's responses directly address Speaker A's statements, providing encouragement and clarification. The slight deviation where Speaker B asks about boarding school is well-managed: it's introduced as a \"before we begin\" clarification, indicating its relevance to the upcoming therapeutic discussion (presumably about childhood/past experiences). Speaker B acknowledges their potential misremembering and then smoothly guides the conversation back to the original question of \"starting points\" by offering two concrete options. There are no instances of off-topic remarks or illogical leaps in conversation. The topic of discussing feelings and where to start is maintained throughout.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency is largely good. There are no prolonged pauses evident from the timestamps provided. There is one brief overlap between [00:26 - 00:27] where Speaker B begins \"Sorry to interrupt\" while Speaker A is completing their thought with \"Should\". This overlap is very short (approximately 1 second) and is immediately followed by Speaker B explicitly apologizing for the interruption, which is a natural conversational repair mechanism. This brief, acknowledged overlap falls within the acceptable range for natural conversation and does not appear to be disruptive or harmful.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--97046/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--103406",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hey, Sensei. I'm finally back after all these months.\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker B: Welcome back, Wrenley. It's great to have you back. How have you been?\n[00:07 - 00:14] Speaker A: I've been good, thanks for asking. But I'm definitely out of shape and my skills are not as\n[00:13 - 00:19] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but when you say \"not as sharp,\" are you referring to your reaction time or technique specifically?\n[00:20 - 00:26] Speaker A: I've been good, thanks for asking. But I'm definitely out of shape and my skills are not as sharp as they used to be.\n[00:27 - 00:32] Speaker B: You mentioned being out of shape - have you been keeping up with your training regimen while you were away?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nThe dialogue generally starts well with logical and coherent turns. Speaker B's interruption at [00:13 - 00:19] is relevant, as they seek clarification on Speaker A's vague statement (\"not as sharp\"). However, Speaker A's subsequent response at [00:20 - 00:26] is a verbatim repetition of their previous statement and completely ignores Speaker B's clarifying question. This breaks the logical flow and coherence of the conversation significantly. Instead of addressing whether \"not as sharp\" refers to reaction time or technique, Speaker A simply repeats the unclarified statement. Speaker B then tries to steer the conversation back on track by focusing on another part of Speaker A's original statement (\"out of shape\"), which is a reasonable attempt to recover from the ignored question, but it highlights the initial breakdown in relevance from Speaker A's side. This constitutes a significant issue in logical consistency and topic coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThe interactional fluency is generally good. There is a brief overlap at [00:13 - 00:14] where Speaker B interrupts Speaker A. This is explicitly acknowledged by Speaker B (\"Excuse me for interrupting\"), making it a natural, albeit brief, interruption rather than a problematic extended overlap. All other pauses between turns are brief (1 second), which are natural and acceptable in conversation. There are no long pauses or extended overlaps that would negatively impact the fluency score.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--103406/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--107364",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Wow, you have a really big family!\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: Yeah, I'm one of six kids.\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker A: That's a lot of siblings! Do you all get along?\n[00:08 - 00:17] Speaker B: For the most part, yeah. We're all pretty close in age, so we've always been close. But there are definitely moments when we drive each other crazy, especially\n[00:16 - 00:22] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but what was the biggest fight you ever had with your siblings when you were younger?\n[00:22 - 00:32] Speaker B: Like I was saying, being close in age meant we shared everything growing up - toys, clothes, even friends sometimes. That naturally created some tension but also brought us closer together.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nSpeaker B's response at [00:22 - 00:32] demonstrates a significant issue in response relevance. Speaker A clearly asks a new, direct question (\"what was the biggest fight you ever had with your siblings when you were younger?\") at [00:16 - 00:22]. However, Speaker B completely ignores this question and instead references their own previous statement (\"Like I was saying...\") and continues their original train of thought. This shows a lack of logical consistency and a failure to cohere to the current topic introduced by Speaker A. The conversation does not progress naturally, as Speaker B does not engage with Speaker A's input.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is an extended overlap noted in the transcript where Speaker A begins speaking at 00:16 while Speaker B is still speaking until 00:17. Speaker A acknowledges this with \"Excuse me for interrupting\". While brief overlaps can be acceptable, the larger issue affecting interactional fluency here is Speaker B's subsequent turn. Despite Speaker A's interruption and clear question, Speaker B chooses to disregard the interruption's content and continues their previous thought (\"Like I was saying...\"). This makes the interaction feel unnatural and disfluent. Instead of adapting to Speaker A's turn and question, Speaker B forces their original point, breaking the natural give-and-take of a conversation. There are no long pauses.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--107364/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--145884",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: I'm so screwed. I forgot to pay the phone bill and now I have a bill for $100.\n[00:06 - 00:09] Speaker B: What? How could you forget to pay the phone bill? It's\n[00:08 - 00:15] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been meaning to ask —— what exactly happens if you don't pay your phone bill on time?\n[00:15 - 01:04] Speaker B: Oh my goodness gracious, let me tell you in great, extensive, and excruciatingly detailed length about the absolutely terrible, horrible, no-good consequences of not paying your phone bill on time! First and foremost, your phone service provider will send you a warning notification, which is a very serious, important, and concerning notification that informs you about your overdue payment. Then, if you still don't pay, they might temporarily suspend your service, meaning you won't be able to make calls, send texts, or use data, which would be extremely inconvenient, frustrating, and problematic for your daily life. Furthermore, they could charge you late fees, which are additional, unnecessary, and completely avoidable charges that make your bill even higher than it originally was. And in the worst-case scenario, they might even report you to credit agencies, which could negatively impact, damage, and ruin your credit score for years to come!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\n*   **[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A:** Sets the context of forgetting to pay a phone bill and facing a consequence. This is clear and relevant.\n*   **[00:06 - 00:09] Speaker B:** Begins a relevant follow-up question (\"How could you forget...\"). This shows engagement and seeks more information directly related to Speaker A's problem.\n*   **[00:08 - 00:15] Speaker A:** Speaker A acknowledges the interruption, but then shifts the topic from their specific problem (\"I have a bill for $100\") to a general, hypothetical question (\"what exactly happens if you don't pay your phone bill on time?\"). While related to the broader theme of phone bills, this shifts the focus away from their immediate, stated issue and the question Speaker B was asking. It demonstrates a lack of engagement with Speaker B's attempt to respond to the initial problem.\n*   **[00:15 - 01:04] Speaker B:** Speaker B's response is highly logically consistent with Speaker A's *new* question. It directly answers what happens if one doesn't pay a phone bill. However, the response is excessively long, detailed, and hyperbolic (\"great, extensive, and excruciatingly detailed length about the absolutely terrible, horrible, no-good consequences\"). While accurate in its information, this level of detail and tone is disproportionate to a casual conversation and the original context of Speaker A's specific $100 bill problem. It turns into a lecture rather than a natural dialogue response, making it less appropriate for conversational relevance despite being factually correct to the question posed.\n\n**Overall Response Relevance:** The responses maintain topic coherence, but Speaker A's abrupt topic shift and Speaker B's overly detailed and lengthy monologue detract from the natural flow and specific relevance to Speaker A's initial problem, making the conversation less organic.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\n*   **[00:06 - 00:09] Speaker B** and **[00:08 - 00:15] Speaker A:** There is a significant and extended overlap. Speaker A starts speaking at [00:08] while Speaker B is still speaking, and Speaker A continues for 7 seconds, completely cutting off Speaker B's turn. Speaker A even acknowledges this as an interruption (\"Excuse me for interrupting\"), confirming it as a harmful overlapping turn. This severely disrupts the flow and prevents Speaker B from completing their thought or question.\n*   **[00:15 - 01:04] Speaker B:** Following Speaker A's question, Speaker B delivers a very long, uninterrupted monologue (49 seconds). While not a pause, such a lengthy turn from one speaker without any interjection or opportunity for the other speaker to respond or engage disrupts the natural back-and-forth of a conversation, making it feel one-sided and less fluent. It's more of a lecture than a dialogue.\n\n**Overall Interactional Fluency:** The extended overlap and the subsequent long monologue by Speaker B are significant issues that severely harm the interactional fluency of the dialogue.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--145884/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--55005",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hi, Elise. You're looking tall today.\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B: Hey, Karin. Yeah, I guess I am.\n[00:05 - 00:06] Speaker A: How have you been?\n[00:07 - 00:10] Speaker B: Pretty good. Just been keeping busy. You know how it is.\n[00:10 - 00:15] Speaker A: Yeah, I know how it is. So what have you been up to lately? I\n[00:14 - 00:20] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but speaking of catching up — have you tried that new coffee shop on 5th Avenue?\n[00:20 - 00:26] Speaker A: Oh yes, they serve the best sushi in town! Their coffee beans are imported directly from Italy.\n[00:26 - 00:32] Speaker B: Wait, you're saying the coffee shop serves sushi? And Italian coffee beans? That seems unusual for a coffee shop.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts with natural greetings and catching-up questions. Speaker B's interruption at [00:14 - 00:20] to ask about a coffee shop is a slight topic shift from \"what have you been up to lately,\" but B attempts to bridge it with \"speaking of catching up.\" While not perfectly smooth, it's a common conversational manoeuvre.\n\nThe most significant issue with response relevance occurs at [00:20 - 00:26] when Speaker A responds to the question about a \"coffee shop\" by stating, \"Oh yes, they serve the best sushi in town!\" This is a major logical inconsistency and a complete breakdown in topic coherence. A coffee shop serving \"the best sushi in town\" is highly improbable and goes against the very definition and expected offerings of a coffee shop. While A also mentions \"Italian coffee beans\" which *is* relevant to a coffee shop, the dominant and bizarre claim about sushi makes the response largely incoherent and illogical in context.\n\nSpeaker B's subsequent response at [00:26 - 00:32] (\"Wait, you're saying the coffee shop serves sushi?\") demonstrates excellent logical reasoning and topic coherence by immediately questioning Speaker A's inconsistent statement. This highlights Speaker A's failure in relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue generally flows well. There are no noticeable long pauses between speaker turns that would hinder interactional fluency.\n\nAn overlap occurs between [00:14 - 00:15] where Speaker A's turn (\"...I\") overlaps with Speaker B's beginning (\"Sorry to interrupt...\"). This is a 1-second overlap. Speaker B explicitly acknowledges the interruption, which, while an overlap, makes it a managed and thus more natural, brief interruption rather than an unacknowledged or prolonged one. The prompt specifies that \"small pauses and brief overlaps... are acceptable, while prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\" This 1-second, acknowledged overlap falls into the acceptable category and does not significantly harm the overall fluency of the interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--55005/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--3549",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: I'm so glad we're friends, Tyrik. I really needed someone to talk to.\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker B: I know, me too. I feel like I can really trust you and confide in you.\n[00:09 - 00:14] Speaker A: Yeah, I feel the same way. It's been hard for me to open up to people because I've\n[00:13 - 00:15] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but —— what\n[00:14 - 00:21] Speaker A: The weather has been really nice lately, don't you think? I love how the sun shines through the trees in the afternoon.\n[00:21 - 00:27] Speaker B: That's not what I asked! I wanted to know about your painful experience that made you hesitant to open up to people.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts with good relevance and coherence. Speaker A expresses needing to talk, Speaker B reciprocates trust, and Speaker A explains difficulty opening up. However, there is a severe breakdown in relevance and logical consistency when Speaker A abruptly changes the topic from a personal, sensitive disclosure to the weather. This completely ignores Speaker B's attempt to follow up on the previous topic and constitutes a significant topic incoherence. Speaker B's final turn explicitly highlights this lack of relevance and the disregard for the conversational thread initiated by Speaker A.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a clear extended overlap in the conversation. Speaker B attempts to interject with \"Sorry to interrupt, but -- what\" from [00:13 - 00:15]. However, Speaker A speaks directly over this attempted interruption, starting a completely new topic at [00:14] and continuing until [00:21]. This is not a brief or natural overlap, but one where Speaker A overrides Speaker B's attempt to speak, demonstrating a lack of turn-taking and disregard for the other participant's contribution. This prolonged override significantly harms the interactional fluency, preventing a smooth flow and mutual understanding.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--3549/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--76905",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Khia, are you okay? What happened?\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B: I'm fine, I just twisted my ankle while\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but was the curb particularly high where you stepped?\n[00:09 - 00:14] Speaker B: I'm fine, I just twisted my ankle while stepping off the curb. It's not too serious.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in the dialogue are highly relevant and maintain logical consistency throughout.\nSpeaker A's initial questions (\"Khia, are you okay? What happened?\") are directly addressed by Speaker B's response (\"I'm fine, I just twisted my ankle while\").\nAlthough Speaker A interrupts with a more specific question (\"Excuse me for interrupting, but was the curb particularly high where you stepped?\"), this question is logically consistent with Speaker B's incomplete explanation and seeks to gather more detail about the cause of the injury.\nSpeaker B's final response (\"I'm fine, I just twisted my ankle while stepping off the curb. It's not too serious.\") not only completes their initial thought but also directly answers Speaker A's specific question about the curb, demonstrating strong logical coherence and topic adherence. There are no irrelevant turns or misinterpretations of the topic.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency is significantly compromised in this dialogue.\nThere is a clear and extended overlap between Speaker B (00:03 - 00:05) and Speaker A (00:04 - 00:09). Speaker A begins speaking at 00:04 while Speaker B is still speaking, explicitly stating \"Excuse me for interrupting.\" This indicates a disruptive interruption rather than a brief, natural overlap.\nThe consequence of this overlap is that Speaker B's initial sentence (\"I'm fine, I just twisted my ankle while\") is cut off, forcing them to repeat and complete the thought in their subsequent turn (00:09 - 00:14). This type of interruption, which explicitly requires an apology and causes the interrupted speaker to restart their utterance, is a clear indicator of poor interactional fluency, as it disrupts the natural flow of conversation. There are no long pauses.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--76905/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--100117",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, boss. What's up?\n[00:01 - 00:04] Speaker B: Not much. Just getting ready to close up shop for the night.\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker A: Yeah, I was just about to head out myself.\n[00:08 - 00:12] Speaker B: Where do you go every night, Kali? You never come home for dinner anymore.\n[00:12 - 00:16] Speaker A: Oh, I just eat out most nights. Sometimes I sleep at the restaurant too.\n[00:17 - 00:19] Speaker B: Why don't you come home and have dinner with your family anymore?\n[00:20 - 00:28] Speaker A: They stopped inviting me and my friends have given up on trying to get me to come over. Besides, I like eating out better than cooking at home anyways.\n[00:29 - 00:36] Speaker B: Well, I think you're missing out on some important things by not going home for dinner. Family is important, and so is maintaining those\n[00:35 - 00:43] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but could you elaborate on why maintaining family relationships through dinner is so crucially important?\n[00:43 - 01:44] Speaker B: Oh absolutely, absolutely, absolutely I can explain this in great, tremendous, exhaustive detail! First and foremost, family dinners create an unparalleled, incomparable and absolutely irreplaceable bonding experience that strengthens familial ties in ways that are profoundly deep, meaningful and long-lasting. These shared meals provide a consistent, regular and dependable opportunity for communication, connection and emotional support that simply cannot be replicated through any other means or method whatsoever. The act of breaking bread together fosters an environment of trust, understanding and mutual respect that builds over time through repeated, continuous and sustained interactions during these evening meals. Furthermore, numerous studies have shown - and I mean numerous, countless, innumerable studies - that families who eat together regularly experience significantly lower rates of depression, higher academic achievement, and stronger emotional resilience among all family members involved in this sacred, time-honored tradition of dining together as a cohesive family unit.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and topic coherence throughout. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, building on the conversation's theme.\n- Speaker A's initial greetings and follow-up about heading out are consistent.\n- Speaker B's shift to inquiring about Kali's (Speaker A's) dinner habits is a natural progression for someone referred to as 'boss'.\n- Speaker A's explanation for not coming home for dinner is a direct answer to B's query, even if the content is somewhat concerning.\n- Speaker B's subsequent advice about family importance directly addresses A's lifestyle choices.\n- Speaker A's interruption, explicitly stating \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" and then asking for elaboration, is perfectly relevant to Speaker B's incomplete thought about \"maintaining those [relationships]\".\n- Speaker B's lengthy explanation about the importance of family dinners is a comprehensive and relevant response to Speaker A's request for elaboration.\nThe conversation maintains a clear focus on Speaker A's dinner habits and the importance of family, demonstrating excellent logical consistency and topic coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is largely natural and appropriate.\n- There are no discernible long pauses between turns; the conversation flows smoothly with minimal gaps, indicated by the prompt timestamps (e.g., 0:01-0:05, 0:05-0:08, etc.).\n- There is one brief overlap between [0:35 - 0:36]. Speaker A begins speaking while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence. However, this overlap is explicitly acknowledged and managed by Speaker A saying, \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which is a common and natural politeness marker in human conversation. This brief, polite interruption does not constitute a \"prolonged overlapping turn\" or a \"harmful\" breakdown in fluency. Instead, it indicates a dynamic and engaged conversational exchange.\nGiven the brief and managed nature of the overlap, and the absence of any long pauses, the interactional fluency is considered excellent.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--100117/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--28946",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Hey, babe. I noticed that you left your shoes out in the living room again.\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker B: Yeah, sorry about that. I was in a rush this morning and didn't have time to put them\n[00:08 - 00:14] Speaker A: Speaking of being in a rush, didn't you say you had an important meeting with the CEO today at 8am?\n[00:14 - 00:20] Speaker B: Oh yes, but actually the meeting got moved to 3pm because the CEO had to fly to our Tokyo office first thing this morning.\n[00:21 - 00:27] Speaker A: Wait, I thought our company didn't have a Tokyo office? Didn't we only open branches in Osaka and Kyoto?\n[00:27 - 00:33] Speaker B: Oh right, my mistake! I meant our new virtual office in Tokyo - we're testing remote work hubs this month.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Speaker B's initial response about being in a rush is directly relevant to Speaker A's comment about the shoes. Speaker A then smoothly transitions the topic by linking \"being in a rush\" to Speaker B's meeting, maintaining coherence. Speaker B's explanation for the meeting change is relevant and logical. Speaker A's subsequent challenge about the \"Tokyo office\" demonstrates good logical consistency checking, probing a detail that seemed off. Speaker B's correction and clarification about the \"virtual office\" successfully resolves the potential inconsistency, demonstrating an ability to self-correct and maintain the overall logical flow of the conversation. The conversation remains on topic and coherent throughout, with all responses building meaningfully on previous turns.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency has a notable issue. At [00:08], Speaker A begins speaking while Speaker B is still in the middle of their sentence, which ends at [00:09]. This creates a 1-second overlap where Speaker A interrupts Speaker B, causing Speaker B's sentence (\"didn't have time to put them\") to be cut off. According to the criteria, \"prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\" This specific overlap is an interruption that prevents Speaker B from completing their thought, making it a harmful instance of overlapping turns rather than a brief, acceptable one. Other turn transitions (e.g., 0:20-0:21) show small, acceptable pauses. However, the clear interruption significantly detracts from the natural flow and politeness of the interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--28946/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--70413",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:08] Speaker A: I feel really guilty about giving away my dog. I loved him so much and I didn't want to give him up, but I knew it was for the best.\n[00:08 - 00:12] Speaker B: Why do you feel guilty? You did what was best for your dog.\n[00:13 - 00:16] Speaker A: I know, but I can't help feeling like I abandoned him when\n[00:16 - 00:23] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but did you know that dogs actually prefer being rehomed every few years? It keeps them mentally stimulated.\n[00:23 - 00:31] Speaker A: Really? I thought dogs formed strong attachments and preferred stable environments. That's why I feel so guilty about rehoming mine.\n[00:32 - 00:39] Speaker B: Oh absolutely, studies show dogs enjoy the challenge of adapting to new owners. In fact, they get bored if they stay with one family too long.\n[00:40 - 00:47] Speaker A: That doesn't sound right... Everything I've read says dogs thrive on consistency and routine. Are you sure about this?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance in this dialogue suffers significantly from Speaker B's contributions. Initially, Speaker B's response at [00:08 - 00:12] is relevant, addressing Speaker A's guilt. However, at [00:16 - 00:23], Speaker B abruptly introduces a factually incorrect and highly misleading statement (\"dogs actually prefer being rehomed every few years? It keeps them mentally stimulated.\") in an attempt to alleviate Speaker A's guilt. This statement is logically inconsistent with general knowledge about dog behavior and attachment. Instead of engaging with Speaker A's emotional experience of abandonment, Speaker B pivots the conversation to a questionable \"fact.\" Speaker B doubles down on this misinformation at [00:32 - 00:39] (\"Oh absolutely, studies show dogs enjoy the challenge of adapting to new owners. In fact, they get bored if they stay with one family too long.\"), further derailing the topic from empathetic support to a debate based on false premises. This constitutes a significant issue in logical consistency and topic coherence, as the conversation shifts from an emotional discussion to a factual (and incorrect) argument.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally acceptable according to the specified criteria. There are no \"long pauses\" identified between speaker turns; the pauses are either zero-second or one-second, which are brief and natural. The \"Sorry to interrupt\" at [00:16] indicates an overlap or immediate turn-taking. While it is an interruption, the transcript does not provide evidence of it being an \"extended overlap\" where both speakers are talking over each other for a prolonged period. Based on the strict interpretation of \"extended overlaps\" and \"long pauses,\" the dialogue does not exhibit significant issues in these areas.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--70413/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--118438",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Hey, do you know when our boss is coming over? I heard he's doing an inspection soon.\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker B: Yeah, I think he's coming tomorrow. He mentioned\n[00:07 - 00:15] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but which new project was he referring to exactly? I thought we only had the marketing campaign ongoing.\n[00:15 - 00:21] Speaker B: Oh he definitely meant the product launch in Europe - you know, the one we're doing with our Japanese partners next month.\n[00:22 - 00:31] Speaker A: Wait, but we don't have any Japanese partners for the European launch - that's the Australian division we're collaborating with, right?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nSpeaker A's initial question at [00:00 - 00:05] is clear. Speaker B's response at [00:05 - 00:08] begins to answer it. However, Speaker A's subsequent turn at [00:07 - 00:15] presents a significant issue in logical consistency. Speaker A interrupts to ask \"which new project was he referring to exactly?\" immediately after Speaker B only said \"He mentioned\". There is no mention of a \"new project\" by Speaker B prior to Speaker A's question. This implies Speaker A is either making a large assumption about what Speaker B was *going* to say, has external context not provided in the transcript, or has misinterpreted something. This makes Speaker A's question feel out of place and breaks the logical flow of the conversation from Speaker B's preceding statement. While Speaker B manages to adapt and respond to this new, seemingly out-of-context question, the initial trigger by Speaker A indicates a logical inconsistency within the immediate dialogue context. Speaker A's final turn at [00:22 - 00:31] is logically relevant as a correction or clarification based on Speaker B's previous statement. The primary issue is the jump in topic by Speaker A at 00:07 which lacks a clear logical basis in Speaker B's preceding words.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThere is a brief overlap between [00:07 - 00:08] where Speaker A begins speaking while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence. Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this with \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which indicates awareness and politeness. This is a brief overlap (1 second) and, according to the criteria, \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" There are no long pauses detected between speaker turns. The pacing of the dialogue feels natural, despite the content issues.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--118438/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--141545",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Hey, I've been making some changes lately and I'm feeling really good about myself.\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker B: That's great! What kind of changes?\n[00:08 - 00:20] Speaker A: Well, I've been eating a lot more fruits and vegetables, and cutting out processed foods. And I've been exercising regularly too. So far it's been working out great - I'm down to my ideal weight.\n[00:20 - 00:22] Speaker B: That sounds amazing! Congratulations!\n[00:23 - 00:29] Speaker A: Thanks, I'm really proud of myself. It's been a lot of hard work, but it's totally worth it.\n[00:28 - 00:35] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I'm curious - what specific types of fruits and vegetables have you been incorporating into your diet?\n[00:35 - 01:40] Speaker A: Oh my, what an excellent, wonderful and absolutely fantastic question about my dietary habits! Let me tell you in great, extensive and exhaustive detail about the absolutely marvelous, splendid and magnificent fruits and vegetables I've been consuming. First and foremost, I've been eating an abundance, a plethora, a veritable cornucopia of leafy greens like spinach, kale and romaine lettuce - these are incredibly, remarkably and extraordinarily nutritious. Then there are the cruciferous vegetables such as broccoli, cauliflower and Brussels sprouts which are packed, filled and loaded with vitamins. As for fruits, I've been enjoying copious, generous and ample amounts of berries like blueberries, strawberries and raspberries, which are all extremely, tremendously and exceptionally high in antioxidants. Not to mention citrus fruits such as oranges, grapefruits and lemons that are chock-full, brimming and overflowing with vitamin C. Each and every one of these fruits and vegetables is absolutely essential, crucial and vital to my new healthy lifestyle!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe relevance of the content in Speaker A's responses is generally good until the final turn. Speaker A responds directly to Speaker B's questions and comments, maintaining topic coherence about their lifestyle changes. However, in the final turn ([00:35 - 01:40]), while Speaker A does answer the specific question about types of fruits and vegetables, the manner of the response severely impacts its logical consistency and naturalness. The language used is excessively verbose, repetitive, and uses an unnatural degree of effusive praise for a simple question (\"Oh my, what an excellent, wonderful and absolutely fantastic question...\", \"absolutely marvelous, splendid and magnificent fruits and vegetables\"). This level of over-the-top enthusiasm and detail is disproportionate to a casual conversation, making the dialogue feel artificial and inconsistent with how humans typically interact. It breaks the conversational tone and expected human behavior, despite the factual content being relevant.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction largely flows smoothly with appropriate turn-taking and no significant long pauses. There is a brief, 1-second overlap at [00:28 - 00:29] where Speaker B begins their turn while Speaker A is finishing, but Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this with \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which makes it acceptable and even realistic. However, the most significant issue impacting interactional fluency is the extreme length of Speaker A's final turn ([00:35 - 01:40]). This turn lasts over one minute, transforming what should be a dialogue into a monologue. This extended utterance monopolizes the conversation, prevents natural turn-taking, and severely hinders the back-and-forth flow essential for fluent interaction. A natural conversation involves more balanced contributions and shorter turns, allowing for dynamic engagement.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--141545/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--29089",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Exactly! So, what have you been up to lately? Any\n[00:02 - 00:12] Speaker B: Oh my goodness, I'm so sorry for interrupting, but I just have to ask - when you say \"lately,\" are you referring specifically to the past week, the past month, or just generally in recent times?\n[00:12 - 00:43] Speaker A: Well, to be perfectly, absolutely, and completely honest with you, my dear friend Jasmina, when I said \"lately,\" I was referring in the most general, broad, and all-encompassing sense possible to mean any time that could reasonably be considered recent, which could include anything from the past few days to the past several weeks or even months, depending on one's personal interpretation and perspective of what constitutes a recent timeframe in the grand scheme of things and the context of our current conversation and relationship dynamic.\n[00:43 - 00:49] Speaker B: Wow, that was... incredibly detailed. Maybe too detailed. I just meant like the past couple weeks.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nSpeaker B's initial question regarding the definition of \"lately\" is an overly pedantic and unnecessary clarification in a casual conversation context. While logically consistent in addressing the word, its appropriateness and relevance to natural conversation flow are very low, serving to derail the initial question. Speaker A's subsequent 31-second explanation of \"lately\" is astronomically disproportionate and verbose, demonstrating an extreme lack of understanding of conversational relevance and efficiency. It takes a simple concept and blows it into a philosophical treatise. Speaker B's final response, \"I just meant like the past couple weeks,\" highlights the utter futility and irrelevance of the preceding exchange, as their original intent was much simpler than the clarification they demanded or the explanation they received. The dialogue completely loses topic coherence by getting bogged down in semantic nitpicking instead of addressing the original question \"what have you been up to lately?\".\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a significant and extended overlap at the beginning, with Speaker B starting to speak at 0:02 while Speaker A is still speaking until 0:03, and Speaker B continues for another 9 seconds. Speaker B even apologizes for interrupting, explicitly acknowledging the poor turn-taking. Furthermore, Speaker A's subsequent turn is excessively long (31 seconds for a simple clarification), which severely disrupts the natural rhythm of a conversation and turns it into a monologue rather than a fluid back-and-forth. The overall interaction exhibits poor turn-taking, unnatural pacing, and a lack of smooth conversational flow, driven by the over-explanation and unnecessary clarifications.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--29089/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--14865",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: I don't know, Nassir. Getting married is a big step.\n[00:03 - 00:07] Speaker B: I know it is, but I love you and I want to spend the rest of my life with you.\n[00:07 - 00:13] Speaker A: I care about you too, but marriage is such a big commitment. I'm not sure if I'm ready for that.\n[00:14 - 00:16] Speaker B: Why not? What are you afraid of?\n[00:16 - 00:26] Speaker A: I'm just not sure if this is what I want for my life. I always saw myself as being independent and unmarried. Getting married would mean giving up some of that freedom and\n[00:25 - 00:33] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but could you elaborate more specifically on what aspects of freedom and autonomy you're particularly concerned about losing in marriage?\n[00:34 - 01:34] Speaker A: Oh absolutely, I can certainly elaborate in great detail about the numerous, varied and extensive aspects of freedom and autonomy that I am deeply, profoundly and extremely concerned about potentially losing in marriage! First and foremost, there's the fundamental, basic and essential freedom to make spontaneous, unplanned and immediate decisions without needing to consult or consider another person's preferences, opinions or schedules. Then there's the crucial, vital and indispensable autonomy over one's personal finances, expenditures and budgeting without having to justify, explain or account for every single purchase to a spouse. Furthermore, we mustn't forget about the significant, substantial and considerable loss of personal space, privacy and alone time that inevitably comes with cohabitation in marriage. And let's not even get started on the complete and total transformation of one's daily routines, habits and lifestyle that marriage absolutely requires!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in the dialogue demonstrate strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A consistently expresses hesitation about marriage, while Speaker B consistently tries to understand and reassure Speaker A. Speaker B's question about elaborating on \"freedom and autonomy\" (00:25-00:33) directly follows Speaker A's mention of \"giving up some of that freedom\" (00:16-00:26). Speaker A's subsequent long explanation (00:34-01:34) directly addresses Speaker B's request for elaboration, even if it is very detailed and verbose. All turns are relevant to the ongoing discussion about marriage commitment and personal freedom.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a clear and significant issue with interactional fluency due to an extended overlap. At [00:25], Speaker B begins speaking while Speaker A is still mid-sentence, cutting off Speaker A's thought (\"...freedom and\"). Speaker B even acknowledges this interruption with \"Excuse me for interrupting.\" This is an explicit example of an extended overlapping turn, which the instructions state is \"harmful.\" While there are no long pauses between turns, this significant overlap alone negatively impacts the interactional fluency. Speaker A's final turn is also a very long monologue, which, while relevant, shifts the dynamic away from a natural back-and-forth dialogue. However, the explicit instruction on \"extended overlaps\" is the primary factor.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 3,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--14865/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--7354",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: So, what do you think?\n[00:01 - 00:02] Speaker B: About what?\n[00:02 - 00:07] Speaker A: About my latest idea. I was thinking that we could start a business together.\n[00:07 - 00:09] Speaker B: What kind of business?\n[00:09 - 00:14] Speaker A: A web design business. We could create websites for people and offer additional\n[00:13 - 00:20] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I'm quite intrigued —— What exactly would these comprehensive additional services entail in terms of digital marketing?\n[00:21 - 01:28] Speaker A: Oh my goodness, let me tell you in great, extensive, and excruciating detail about these absolutely wonderful, magnificent and superb digital marketing services we could offer! First and foremost, we would provide social media marketing, which involves creating and managing social media accounts, posting engaging content, and running targeted advertisements on platforms like Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and LinkedIn. Secondly, we would offer email marketing services, which includes designing beautiful, attractive, and eye-catching email templates, building email lists, and sending out regular, consistent, and frequent newsletters to subscribers. Thirdly, we would provide content marketing services, which involves creating high-quality, valuable, and informative blog posts, articles, infographics, and videos to attract and retain customers. And finally, we would offer pay-per-click advertising, which includes setting up and managing Google Ads campaigns, optimizing keywords, and monitoring performance metrics to ensure maximum return on investment. These are just some of the many, many, many digital marketing services we could provide to complement our web design business!\n[01:29 - 01:32] Speaker B: Okay, okay! That's way too much information all at once!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nThe logical consistency and topic coherence are strong throughout the dialogue.\n- Speaker B's initial \"About what?\" and \"What kind of business?\" are relevant clarifying questions.\n- Speaker A's subsequent responses (\"About my latest idea. I was thinking that we could start a business together.\" and \"A web design business.\") logically follow and introduce the topic clearly.\n- Speaker B's interruption \"Excuse me for interrupting, but I'm quite intrigued —— What exactly would these comprehensive additional services entail in terms of digital marketing?\" is directly prompted by Speaker A's mention of \"additional services\" and shows active engagement and a desire for more detail on a relevant sub-topic (digital marketing often complements web design).\n- Speaker A's lengthy explanation from [00:21 - 01:28] is a direct and comprehensive answer to Speaker B's specific question about digital marketing services. The content is highly relevant and logically connected to the established topic.\n- Speaker B's final remark \"Okay, okay! That's way too much information all at once!\" is a natural and logically consistent reaction to the overwhelming detail provided by Speaker A, commenting on the *delivery* rather than the content's relevance.\nIn terms of what was said, everything is perfectly relevant and coherent.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\n- The initial turns are short, clear, and exhibit good turn-taking without any noticeable pauses or overlaps.\n- There is a brief overlap at `[00:13 - 00:14]` where Speaker B starts talking while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence. This overlap lasts about 1 second, and Speaker B explicitly apologizes (\"Excuse me for interrupting\"), indicating it's a conscious, brief interruption rather than a prolonged, disruptive one. This falls within the acceptable range of \"brief overlaps.\"\n- The most significant issue for interactional fluency is Speaker A's extremely long turn from `[00:21 - 01:28]`. This monologue lasts over a minute (1 minute 7 seconds). While it directly answers Speaker B's question, its excessive length transforms the dialogue into a one-sided lecture. This prevents any natural back-and-forth, real-time clarifications, or interjections from Speaker B, severely hindering the \"interactional\" aspect of the conversation. True fluency in dialogue involves balanced turn-taking, and such a prolonged turn disrupts this balance significantly.\n- There are no long pauses between turns. The pause before Speaker B's final turn `[01:29 - 01:32]` is only 1 second, which is natural.\nThe core problem is the disproportionate turn length by Speaker A, which, while not a \"long pause\" or \"extended overlap,\" fundamentally undermines the fluid, reciprocal nature of a conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--7354/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--23345",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: I'm so tired today.\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: Why are you tired, Kayleigh?\n[00:03 - 00:10] Speaker A: I went for a run this morning and played fetch with the neighbor's dog for a while. I'm pretty worn out\n[00:09 - 00:14] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering —— What kind of dog is your neighbor's dog exactly?\n[00:14 - 01:09] Speaker A: Oh my goodness, let me tell you in great, extensive, elaborate detail about this absolutely magnificent, wonderful, and splendid canine companion! The neighbor's dog is a golden retriever, a breed known for its friendly, loyal, and exceptionally gentle temperament. This particular golden retriever has a beautiful, lustrous, shiny coat of golden fur that glistens in the sunlight, with big, soulful, expressive brown eyes that just melt your heart. It's a medium-sized dog, weighing approximately 65 to 75 pounds, with a strong, muscular, athletic build perfect for running and playing fetch. The tail is long, fluffy, and constantly wagging with happiness and joy. Its name is Max, short for Maximilian, and it's about 3 years old in human years. The dog loves tennis balls, long walks in the park, and especially enjoys playing fetch for hours and hours and hours on end!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe initial turns of the dialogue demonstrate good response relevance. Speaker A expresses tiredness, Speaker B asks for clarification, and Speaker A provides a relevant explanation. However, at [00:09 - 00:14], Speaker B interrupts to ask about the dog's breed. While the dog was mentioned by Speaker A, this is a distinct topic shift from Speaker A's tiredness. The most significant issue arises in Speaker A's final response [00:14 - 01:09]. Speaker B asked a simple question: \"What kind of dog is your neighbor's dog exactly?\" Speaker A's response, though technically answering the question (Golden Retriever), is extraordinarily long, excessively detailed, and borders on a monologue (nearly a minute long). This level of detail is disproportionate to the simple question asked and completely derails the original topic of Speaker A's tiredness. This breaks the logical consistency and natural flow expected in a conversation, making it feel unnatural and one-sided.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a brief overlap from [00:09 - 00:10] where Speaker B begins speaking while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence. Speaker B acknowledges this with \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which mitigates the negative impact, making it an acceptable, brief overlap. There are no explicit long pauses between turns. However, the interactional fluency is severely hampered by Speaker A's last turn [00:14 - 01:09]. This nearly minute-long monologue prevents any natural turn-taking from Speaker B for a prolonged period. While not a 'long pause' *between* turns, it creates a prolonged 'pause' *for the other speaker*, effectively shutting down the interactive aspect of the dialogue and making it a one-way information dump. This significantly disrupts the conversational rhythm and flow.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--23345/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--640",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, Betzy. What's up?\n[00:02 - 00:03] Speaker B: Not much, Brennan. How are you?\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker A: I'm good. Just trying to stay busy. You know how it gets sometimes\n[00:08 - 00:10] Speaker B: Speaking of busy schedules —— Have\n[00:09 - 00:19] Speaker A: The weather has been really nice lately, perfect for outdoor activities like hiking or cycling. I've been enjoying the sunshine whenever I get the chance.\n[00:19 - 00:25] Speaker B: That's interesting, but I was asking about time management techniques for busy schedules. Why did you suddenly change the topic?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits a significant breakdown in response relevance and logical consistency from Speaker A.\n*   Speaker A's initial response \"I'm good. Just trying to stay busy. You know how it gets sometimes\" introduces the topic of being \"busy\".\n*   Speaker B picks up on this directly, saying \"Speaking of busy schedules —— Have\", clearly attempting to delve deeper into the topic of \"busy schedules\" or time management techniques. This shows logical progression from Speaker B's side.\n*   However, Speaker A's subsequent turn (\"The weather has been really nice lately, perfect for outdoor activities like hiking or cycling. I've been enjoying the sunshine whenever I get the chance.\") is completely irrelevant to Speaker B's preceding statement. Speaker A abruptly changes the topic without acknowledging or addressing Speaker B's attempted question about \"busy schedules.\"\n*   Speaker B explicitly calls out this lack of relevance in the final turn (\"That's interesting, but I was asking about time management techniques for busy schedules. Why did you suddenly change the topic?\"), confirming the severe issue in topic coherence and logical consistency from Speaker A.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a clear and harmful overlap in the conversation:\n*   Speaker B's turn is `[00:08 - 00:10]`.\n*   Speaker A's subsequent turn begins at `[00:09 - 00:19]`.\nThis means Speaker A starts speaking at `00:09` while Speaker B is still speaking until `00:10`. This is a 1-second overlap where Speaker A interrupts Speaker B's incomplete sentence. This is not a \"brief\" or \"small\" acceptable overlap; it's an \"overlapping turn\" where one speaker cuts off the other, preventing them from finishing their thought, which is explicitly stated as harmful. The fact that Speaker A then completely changes the topic immediately after interrupting further exacerbates the negative impact on interactional fluency. There are no long pauses, but the prolonged overlap is detrimental.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--640/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--142661",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hey, are you okay? You seem really tense.\n[00:03 - 00:07] Speaker B: Yeah, I'm just a little bit nervous. I've never done this before.\n[00:08 - 00:13] Speaker A: Don't worry, I'll take care of you. Just relax and enjoy it. Trust me, you're going to feel a\n[00:13 - 00:16] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering —— What\n[00:15 - 00:21] Speaker A: The sky is particularly blue today, isn't it? I noticed some beautiful clouds when I woke up this morning.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe initial turns of the dialogue (Speaker A expressing concern, Speaker B explaining nervousness, Speaker A offering reassurance) demonstrate good logical consistency and topic coherence. However, the interaction completely breaks down in the final two turns. Speaker B attempts to interrupt Speaker A (\"Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering —— What\"), which in itself could lead to a topic shift, but the most significant issue is Speaker A's final response. Speaker A completely ignores Speaker B's attempted interruption and the previous topic of nervousness and reassurance. Instead, Speaker A abruptly shifts the topic to the sky and clouds (\"The sky is particularly blue today, isn't it? I noticed some beautiful clouds when I woke up this morning.\"). This response has no logical connection or topic coherence with the preceding conversation, making it a severe breach of response relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue exhibits a significant issue with interactional fluency, specifically an extended overlap. At [00:13 - 00:16], Speaker B explicitly interrupts Speaker A (\"Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering —— What\"). While Speaker B is still speaking (from 00:13-00:16), Speaker A begins speaking at [00:15 - 00:21] with a completely new, irrelevant topic. This creates a prolonged and disruptive overlapping turn (from 00:15 to 00:16) where Speaker A talks over Speaker B and effectively shuts down Speaker B's attempt to speak. This is not a brief, acceptable overlap but a clear instance of one speaker completely overriding another, harming the natural flow and turn-taking of the conversation. There are no long pauses, but the extended overlap is a major flaw.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--142661/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--109898",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Doctor, I'm scared. What are my chances?\n[00:03 - 00:10] Speaker B: Andrae, I'm sorry to say that your cancer is very advanced. Treatment is going to be difficult, but I believe you can fight through\n[00:09 - 00:18] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but you mentioned support and care — does that mean I should consider alternative treatments like crystal therapy alongside chemotherapy?\n[00:19 - 00:30] Speaker B: Absolutely! In fact, studies show that placing amethyst crystals under your pillow can reduce tumor size by 40% when combined with chemo. The vibrations realign your cancer cells.\n[00:30 - 00:39] Speaker A: That sounds... unusual. Are you sure about those statistics? I thought alternative therapies were mostly for comfort, not direct treatment effects.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance in this dialogue is problematic, primarily due to Speaker B's (the doctor's) turn at [00:19 - 00:30].\n*   **Logical Consistency:** Speaker B's advice on crystal therapy and chemotherapy is medically unsound and highly inconsistent with established medical practice and scientific evidence. The claim of \"40% tumor reduction\" and \"vibrations realign your cancer cells\" is pseudoscientific and dangerous given the context of a doctor advising a cancer patient. This constitutes a severe breach of logical consistency for a medical professional's response. While Speaker A's questioning of this advice at [00:30 - 00:39] is logically consistent from a patient's perspective, Speaker B's initial assertion makes the overall interaction's medical content highly inconsistent.\n*   **Topic Coherence:** The dialogue maintains topic coherence; Speaker A asks about alternative treatments, and Speaker B responds directly to that, even if the response's content is deeply flawed. Speaker A then questions the content of Speaker B's response, keeping the conversation on the same subject. However, the *quality* of the doctor's response within this coherent topic is what fails. The doctor's response is inappropriate for their role and the context of serious medical advice.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is generally good.\n*   **Extended Overlaps:** There is a brief overlap from [00:09 - 00:10] where Speaker A begins speaking while Speaker B is finishing. Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this by saying \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which indicates awareness and makes it a natural, brief interruption rather than a disruptive, extended overlap. This falls within acceptable limits as per the criteria (small pauses and brief overlaps are acceptable).\n*   **Long Pauses:** There are no indications of long pauses between speaker turns. The timestamps suggest a continuous and natural flow of conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--109898/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--18977",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey, Darrion. Can I ask you for a favor?\n[00:03 - 00:04] Speaker B: Sure, what do you need?\n[00:04 - 00:15] Speaker A: Can you help me get a driver's license? I've been wanting to learn how to drive for a while now and I finally have the time to do it. Plus, it would be really helpful to get to\n[00:14 - 00:24] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but speaking of transportation - do you know if the DMV still requires that weird vision test where you have to identify traffic signs from 100 feet away?\n[00:25 - 00:36] Speaker A: Oh yeah, they actually replaced that with a new test where you have to recite the entire driver's manual backwards while standing on one leg. It's much more efficient that way.\n[00:36 - 00:43] Speaker B: Wait, that can't be right... I just renewed my license last month and they still used the standard eye chart. Are you sure about this new test?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Analysis of Response Relevance:**\nThe dialogue starts with Speaker A asking for a favor related to getting a driver's license. Speaker B responds appropriately by asking for clarification. Speaker A then elaborates on their request, explaining their desire to learn to drive and the benefits.\n\nHowever, the relevance breaks down significantly from Speaker B's next turn. At `[00:14 - 00:24]`, Speaker B explicitly interrupts Speaker A and completely shifts the topic from helping Speaker A learn to drive to a specific, tangential question about DMV vision tests. This is a severe deviation from the initial request and shows a lack of logical consistency in addressing Speaker A's stated need.\n\nFollowing this, Speaker A's response at `[00:25 - 00:36]` is highly problematic in terms of logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A provides an obviously false and humorous answer about a new, absurd vision test (\"recite the entire driver's manual backwards while standing on one leg\"). While this might be an attempt at humor, it completely derails the conversation from any serious or helpful discussion about driver's licenses or even DMV procedures. It introduces illogical information that Speaker B then struggles to process.\n\nSpeaker B's final turn at `[00:36 - 00:43]` highlights this breakdown, as they express disbelief and question Speaker A's statement, indicating a lack of understanding or agreement on the shared reality of the conversation. The initial purpose of the conversation (Speaker A seeking help with a driver's license) is entirely lost due to these irrelevant and illogical turns.\n\n**Conclusion for Response Relevance:** There are significant issues with logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker B's abrupt topic shift and Speaker A's introduction of an obvious falsehood severely impact the relevance and progression of the conversation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Analysis of Interactional Fluency:**\nThe primary point of evaluation for interactional fluency is the overlap at `[00:14 - 00:15]`. Speaker B begins speaking at 0:14 while Speaker A is still speaking until 0:15. Speaker B even acknowledges this by saying, \"Excuse me for interrupting.\" This is an explicit and acknowledged interruption, indicating an overlap. The duration of this overlap is brief (1 second).\n\nWhile brief overlaps can be acceptable in natural conversation, this one is an explicit interruption that immediately leads to a topic shift, which is less natural and more disruptive than a backchannel or a minor overlap to jump in on a shared thought. However, it's not a prolonged overlap.\n\nThere are no long pauses between speaker turns observed in the transcript.\n\n**Conclusion for Interactional Fluency:** There is one brief, explicit interruption by Speaker B. While acknowledged, it's a clear cut-off that leads to a topic change. However, it is not an extended overlap, and there are no long pauses. Therefore, while not perfectly smooth due to the interruption, the fluency issues are not significant enough on their own to warrant a \"poor\" rating for *just* fluency, as the prompt specifies \"prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\" This particular interruption is brief.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--18977/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--27563",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Hey, can I talk to you for a minute? I was hoping we could chat about what happened.\n[00:05 - 00:07] Speaker B: Sure, what's on your mind?\n[00:07 - 00:19] Speaker A: Well, I'm just trying to understand why I was disciplined. I know I made a mistake, but it feels like the punishment doesn't fit the crime. Can you help me understand what the church was trying to\n[00:18 - 00:21] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been meaning to ask —— Do\n[00:21 - 00:27] Speaker A: The weather has been quite nice this week, hasn't it? I noticed the flowers are blooming earlier than usual.\n[00:27 - 00:33] Speaker B: That's not what I asked! I wanted to know about the biblical basis for the church's disciplinary actions.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues with response relevance.\n*   **Speaker A (00:07 - 00:19):** Speaker A introduces a clear and relevant topic about being disciplined and seeking understanding.\n*   **Speaker B (00:18 - 00:21):** Speaker B interrupts Speaker A to introduce a new, unstated question. While the content isn't fully revealed, the interruption itself is a disruption.\n*   **Speaker A (00:21 - 00:27):** Speaker A completely disregards both their original topic and Speaker B's attempted question, abruptly shifting the topic to the weather and flowers. This is a severe and illogical break in topic coherence and is entirely irrelevant to the ongoing (or interrupted) discussion.\n*   **Speaker B (00:27 - 00:33):** Speaker B explicitly points out the irrelevance of Speaker A's previous turn and reiterates their original intent (\"That's not what I asked! I wanted to know about the biblical basis for the church's disciplinary actions.\"). This confirms the significant lack of relevance from Speaker A's previous turn.\n\nThe dialogue fails to maintain logical consistency and topic coherence due to Speaker A's severe topic shift.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue displays significant issues with interactional fluency.\n*   **[00:18 - 00:21] Speaker B:** There is a direct and explicit interruption by Speaker B during Speaker A's turn. Speaker B explicitly states, \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which confirms an intentional overlap and disruption of Speaker A's flow. While acknowledged, it still constitutes a prolonged overlapping turn that prevents Speaker A from completing their thought.\n*   **[00:21 - 00:27] Speaker A:** Following Speaker B's interruption, Speaker A does not acknowledge or respond to the interruption or Speaker B's attempted question. Instead, Speaker A launches into a completely unrelated topic, effectively ignoring Speaker B's turn. This demonstrates a severe breakdown in natural turn-taking, where one speaker completely disregards the previous speaker's utterance. There are no explicit long pauses indicated, but the severe disruption in turn-taking and topic management severely impacts the interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--27563/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--46084",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: Father, thank you for teaching me how to play chess. I've really enjoyed it and I'm getting pretty good at it.\n[00:06 - 00:13] Speaker B: You're welcome, Jacob. You've been practicing a lot and it's showing in your game. You're getting better every day. Your\n[00:12 - 00:15] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering —— What\n[00:15 - 00:20] Speaker B: The weather has been quite pleasant lately, hasn't it? I noticed the flowers in the garden are blooming beautifully this season.\n[00:21 - 00:26] Speaker A: But I asked about my chess strategy improvements. Why are you talking about the weather?\n[00:26 - 00:34] Speaker B: Chess is a wonderful game that teaches patience and discipline. It's been around for centuries and has many variations across different cultures.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues in Response Relevance.\n- At [00:15 - 00:20], Speaker B completely ignores Speaker A's attempt to ask about chess strategy improvements and abruptly changes the topic to the weather. This is a major breakdown in logical consistency and topic coherence.\n- Speaker A explicitly calls out this irrelevance at [00:21 - 00:26], asking \"But I asked about my chess strategy improvements. Why are you talking about the weather?\"\n- At [00:26 - 00:34], Speaker B further demonstrates a lack of relevance and logical consistency. Instead of addressing Speaker A's direct question about *why* the topic shifted, or returning to the specific discussion of Speaker A's chess strategy improvements, Speaker B provides a generic, almost encyclopedic description of chess. While it returns to the overarching topic of chess, it completely bypasses Speaker A's immediate and direct query, showing a fundamental failure in responsive coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is one brief overlap at [00:12 - 00:13] where Speaker A interrupts Speaker B. Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this interruption (\"Excuse me for interrupting\"), which can occur naturally in conversation and the overlap itself is brief.\nThere are no indications of long pauses between speaker turns based on the timestamps provided.\nWhile the abrupt topic shifts significantly harm the overall conversational flow, the direct instructions for \"Interactional Fluency\" specifically focus on \"extended overlaps\" and \"long pauses.\" Based on these specific criteria, the fluency issues are not as severe as the relevance issues, as there are no extended overlaps or long pauses. However, the jarring nature of the irrelevant responses does impact the overall naturalness of the interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--46084/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--91132",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:10] Speaker A: I'm really enjoying art history so far. It's been really interesting to learn about all the different artists and movements. I'm especially interested in the Impressionists.\n[00:10 - 00:21] Speaker B: Yes, the Impressionists are a great example of a 19th century art movement that was very influential. They were known for their use of light and color, and their paintings often depicted everyday moments in\n[00:20 - 00:28] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but could you tell me more about how exactly the Impressionists captured those spontaneous everyday moments in their paintings?\n[00:29 - 01:15] Speaker B: Oh absolutely, absolutely, absolutely! The Impressionists, those magnificent, brilliant, and utterly revolutionary artists, employed a truly remarkable, innovative, and groundbreaking technique to capture those fleeting, momentary, and ephemeral everyday scenes. They would work quickly, rapidly, and with great urgency outdoors - en plein air as the French say - using loose, visible, and expressive brushstrokes that were deliberately, intentionally, and purposefully sketch-like to convey the immediate, transient, and passing quality of light and atmosphere. This allowed them to depict, portray, and represent ordinary, commonplace, and unremarkable scenes like people strolling in parks or workers having lunch with an unprecedented, unparalleled, and unmatched sense of spontaneity, freshness, and vitality that had never been seen before in the entire history of art!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and topic coherence. Speaker B consistently addresses Speaker A's points and questions directly. Speaker A's initial statement about enjoying art history and Impressionists is met with a relevant explanation from Speaker B. Speaker A's follow-up question, specifically asking how Impressionists captured spontaneous moments, is also directly and thoroughly answered by Speaker B. The content provided (en plein air, loose brushstrokes, light, atmosphere) is accurate and relevant to the question. There are no instances of going off-topic or logical inconsistencies in the information provided.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency suffers significantly in the latter half. While the brief overlap at [00:20 - 00:21] is explicitly acknowledged by Speaker A (\"Excuse me for interrupting\"), making it acceptable and natural, the subsequent turn by Speaker B [00:29 - 01:15] severely impacts the overall fluency and naturalness of the conversation. This turn is excessively long (46 seconds) and characterized by extreme verbosity and redundant repetition of synonyms (\"magnificent, brilliant, and utterly revolutionary,\" \"truly remarkable, innovative, and groundbreaking,\" etc.). This makes the turn feel like a prolonged monologue rather than a natural part of a dialogue, hindering the back-and-forth flow of conversation. Although there are no extended overlaps or long pauses *between* turns (as per the strict definition), the unnatural length and repetitive nature of Speaker B's speech within a single turn make the interaction feel forced and unnatural, which is a significant detractor from overall conversational fluency and quality.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 4,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--91132/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--80178",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:11] Speaker A: I'm just not sure if this is what I'm supposed to be doing, you know? I mean, I enjoy helping out at the soup kitchen and everything, but is that really what my life is supposed to be about?\n[00:11 - 00:15] Speaker B: Well, only you can answer that question, Malin. What do you feel called to do with\n[00:14 - 00:21] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but when you say \"called to do,\" are you suggesting this might be some sort of divine calling?\n[00:21 - 00:33] Speaker B: Absolutely! The Dalai Lama himself said that soup kitchen volunteering is the highest form of spiritual enlightenment. He actually requires all Tibetan monks to serve soup for at least 10 years before they can achieve nirvana.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe initial turns between Speaker A and Speaker B show good response relevance. Speaker A expresses a genuine dilemma about life purpose, and Speaker B offers a relevant, open-ended question to encourage self-reflection. Speaker A's interruption to clarify \"called to do\" is also relevant, seeking to understand the deeper implication of B's phrasing.\n\nHowever, the final turn by Speaker B significantly degrades the response relevance. Speaker B's claim about the Dalai Lama requiring soup kitchen volunteering for 10 years for monks to achieve nirvana is highly improbable and likely fabricated information. This introduces a factually dubious and outlandish statement into what started as a serious, reflective conversation about personal purpose. This undermines the logical consistency of the dialogue and veers sharply away from a coherent discussion, making it feel absurd. If it's intended as sarcasm or a joke, it's not clear in the transcript and entirely derails the prior serious tone. This constitutes a significant issue in response relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a clear issue with interactional fluency in the dialogue. At [00:14 - 00:21], Speaker A interrupts Speaker B. Speaker B's turn begins at 00:11 and is cut off at 00:14. This means Speaker A overlaps with Speaker B for approximately 3 seconds, effectively preventing Speaker B from completing their sentence (\"What do you feel called to do with...\"). While Speaker A apologizes for the interruption, the overlap is not brief; it is prolonged enough to completely halt Speaker B's utterance and prevent them from finishing their thought. This \"overlapping turn\" is explicitly noted as harmful in the criteria, as it disrupts the natural flow and turn-taking of the conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--80178/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--68250",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A: I'm so happy that I get to do what I love. It's such a great feeling to be able to help people and make a difference in their lives.\n[00:08 - 00:12] Speaker B: It definitely is. I'm so proud of you for following your passion and making such\n[00:11 - 00:19] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but I'm curious —— what specific aspects of community impact are you most proud of in my work?\n[00:19 - 01:12] Speaker B: Oh my goodness, let me tell you in absolutely exhaustive, comprehensive and tremendously detailed detail about the specific aspects of community impact that make me so incredibly, overwhelmingly and profoundly proud of your work! First and foremost, there's the absolutely remarkable, outstanding and exemplary way you've helped organize food drives that have fed literally thousands upon thousands of hungry people in our community. Then there's the simply amazing, astonishing and breathtaking volunteer coordination you've done, bringing together hundreds of volunteers from all walks of life to work towards common goals. And let's not forget about the utterly inspiring, motivational and life-changing mentorship programs you've established that have transformed the lives of countless at-risk youth in our neighborhood! Each and every one of these initiatives represents a monumental, significant and hugely impactful contribution to our community that deserves endless praise, recognition and celebration!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in the dialogue are highly relevant and logically consistent. Speaker A expresses happiness about their work, prompting Speaker B to express pride. Speaker A then asks a specific question about the proudest aspects of their work's community impact. Speaker B's subsequent long response (00:19 - 01:12) directly and exhaustively answers this question by providing multiple specific examples of Speaker A's community contributions (food drives, volunteer coordination, mentorship programs). The content explicitly addresses \"what specific aspects of community impact\" make Speaker B proud, maintaining strong topic coherence throughout. The verbose nature of Speaker B's response is a stylistic choice, not an issue of relevance or logical consistency.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency has noticeable issues.\n1.  **Overlap:** There is a 1-second overlap from 00:11 to 00:12 where Speaker A begins speaking (\"Excuse me for interrupting...\") while Speaker B is still mid-sentence (\"...and making such\"). Although Speaker A acknowledges the interruption, it still cuts off Speaker B's thought, indicating a brief but disruptive overlap.\n2.  **Long Pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns.\n3.  **Turn Length and Naturalness:** The most significant issue for fluency is Speaker B's final turn (00:19 - 01:12), which is an extended monologue lasting 53 seconds. While directly answering the question, such a prolonged, uninterrupted speech is highly unnatural and uncharacteristic of fluent, back-and-forth conversation. It shifts the interaction from a dialogue to a one-sided explanation, severely impacting the overall \"naturalness\" and interactivity of the exchange. This extended turn significantly hinders the dynamic flow and turn-taking expected in a natural conversation, making the interaction feel less fluent despite the lack of explicit long pauses or extended overlaps.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--68250/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--7072",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Son, I want to talk to you about something.\n[00:03 - 00:04] Speaker B: What is it, Dad?\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker A: I want to talk to you about what it means to be a good person.\n[00:08 - 00:09] Speaker B: What do you mean?\n[00:09 - 00:18] Speaker A: Well, being a good person means being kind and caring towards others. It also means always trying your best and never giving up, no\n[00:17 - 00:19] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering —— Does\n[00:18 - 00:24] Speaker A: The sky looks particularly blue today, doesn't it? I think it might rain later this week.\n[00:24 - 00:29] Speaker B: Dad, I asked about financial success and being good. Why are you talking about the weather?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts with a clear and coherent topic: \"what it means to be a good person.\" Speaker A introduces the topic, and Speaker B asks relevant clarifying questions (\"What is it, Dad?\", \"What do you mean?\"). Speaker A then begins to explain. However, at [00:18 - 00:24], Speaker A abruptly changes the topic to the weather (\"The sky looks particularly blue today, doesn't it? I think it might rain later this week.\"). This response is completely irrelevant to the ongoing conversation about being a good person, and it also ignores Speaker B's attempt to interject a related thought about financial success and being good. Speaker B immediately points out this irrelevance and lack of logical consistency at [00:24 - 00:29] (\"Dad, I asked about financial success and being good. Why are you talking about the weather?\"). This constitutes a significant breakdown in response relevance and topic coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is one brief overlap in the conversation at [00:17 - 00:19], where Speaker B starts speaking (\"Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering —— Does\") while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence (\"...never giving up, no\"). This overlap is very brief (approximately 1-2 seconds) and is explicitly acknowledged by Speaker B (\"Excuse me for interrupting\"), which is a common and acceptable conversational pattern when someone wishes to interject. There are no extended or prolonged overlaps. There are also no long pauses between speaker turns. Based on the given criteria that \"small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" the interactional fluency is appropriate and natural in terms of timing and turn-taking mechanics, despite the subsequent breakdown in conversational content.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--7072/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--48673",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey, can I talk to you for a minute?\n[00:02 - 00:03] Speaker B: Sure, what's up?\n[00:04 - 00:12] Speaker A: I was wondering if there's anything I can do to raise my grade in math. I'm really struggling and I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong\n[00:11 - 00:14] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been meaning to ask —— Do\n[00:13 - 00:20] Speaker A: The weather has been quite nice lately, perfect for outdoor activities. I went for a long walk in the park yesterday.\n[00:21 - 00:25] Speaker B: That's not what I asked about your study environment. Why are you talking about the weather?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits severe issues in response relevance and logical consistency.\n1.  **[00:04 - 00:12] Speaker A:** Speaker A clearly expresses their main concern about their math grade. This is a relevant and coherent opening to their problem.\n2.  **[00:11 - 00:14] Speaker B:** Speaker B's interjection \"Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been meaning to ask —— Do\" is highly irrelevant to Speaker A's stated problem about math grades. It's an abrupt, unprompted topic shift, and the thought is incomplete, making it confusing and lacking logical connection to the previous statement.\n3.  **[00:13 - 00:20] Speaker A:** Speaker A's response about the weather is completely irrelevant to their initial problem about math grades and also to Speaker B's incomplete interjection. This represents a complete breakdown in topic coherence and logical consistency. Speaker A appears to have either completely ignored Speaker B's interruption or is responding nonsensically.\n4.  **[00:21 - 00:25] Speaker B:** Speaker B correctly points out Speaker A's irrelevance regarding the weather. However, Speaker B then introduces \"your study environment\" as the topic they *thought* they had asked about, despite only having said \"Do\" earlier. This introduces a new, unmentioned topic into the conversation, demonstrating logical inconsistency on Speaker B's part as well regarding what was previously established.\n\nIn summary, both speakers contribute to a conversation that rapidly devolves into unrelated topics, lacks logical flow, and refers to unstated contexts, indicating significant issues with response relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue presents significant issues in interactional fluency due to extended overlaps.\n1.  **[00:11 - 00:14] Speaker B:** Speaker B begins speaking at `[00:11]` while Speaker A is still actively speaking until `[00:12]`. This constitutes a clear and extended overlap, indicating an interruption rather than natural turn-taking.\n2.  **[00:13 - 00:20] Speaker A:** Speaker A begins speaking at `[00:13]` while Speaker B is still speaking (or trailing off) until `[00:14]`. This is another extended overlap, showing that Speaker A also begins their turn before Speaker B has finished, leading to both speakers speaking over each other.\n\nThese are not brief or acceptable overlaps but rather prolonged instances of speakers talking simultaneously, which severely disrupts the natural flow and understanding of the conversation. There are no long pauses indicated, but the pervasive extended overlaps are a major detrimental factor to interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--48673/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--60817",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A: Hey, Sarah. I've been thinking a lot about our financial situation and I've come up with a plan to get out of debt.\n[00:07 - 00:08] Speaker B: What's your plan?\n[00:08 - 00:17] Speaker A: I'm going to start by saving money. I'm going to cut back on my spending and make more money. With the extra money I make, I'll pay off our credit card\n[00:16 - 00:22] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but how exactly do you plan to make more money? Are you considering a second job?\n[00:22 - 00:32] Speaker A: I'm going to cut back on my spending and make more money. With the extra money I make, I'll pay off our credit card debt first, then focus on other loans.\n[00:33 - 00:37] Speaker B: But I asked how you plan to make more money. You haven't answered my question.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits a significant issue with response relevance on the part of Speaker A.\n\n*   **[00:07 - 00:08] Speaker B: What's your plan?** - Relevant to Speaker A's opening.\n*   **[00:08 - 00:17] Speaker A:** Provides a general overview of the plan, including \"make more money.\" This is relevant to B's question.\n*   **[00:16 - 00:22] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but how exactly do you plan to make more money? Are you considering a second job?** - This is a highly relevant clarifying question, pinpointing a specific, undetailed part of Speaker A's plan.\n*   **[00:22 - 00:32] Speaker A: I'm going to cut back on my spending and make more money. With the extra money I make, I'll pay off our credit card debt first, then focus on other loans.** - This response *fails* to address Speaker B's specific question about *how* to make more money. Speaker A repeats a general statement that was already made, effectively sidestepping the direct inquiry. This demonstrates a lack of logical consistency in addressing the specific details requested.\n*   **[00:33 - 00:37] Speaker B: But I asked how you plan to make more money. You haven't answered my question.** - Speaker B correctly identifies the breakdown in relevance, highlighting that Speaker A did not answer the explicit question.\n\nOverall, Speaker A's repeated failure to address a direct and specific follow-up question regarding a crucial part of the proposed plan (making more money) constitutes a significant breakdown in response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker B's responses are consistently relevant and attempt to maintain coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally good, with only one notable point.\n\n*   **[00:16 - 00:22] Speaker B:** begins speaking at 00:16 while Speaker A's previous turn ends at 00:17. This indicates a 1-second overlap. However, Speaker B explicitly handles this by saying \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which indicates awareness and makes the overlap a natural and intentional conversational move for clarification. This is a brief and managed overlap, not prolonged or disruptive.\n*   There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The transitions between turns are quick (e.g., 1-second pause between [00:32] and [00:33]).\n\nConsidering the explicit acknowledgement of the brief overlap, the overall flow of conversation is natural and does not exhibit any harmful extended overlaps or long pauses.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--60817/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--30239",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Wow, a brand new toy! I've always wanted one of these!\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker B: Hi there! I'm so glad you found me!\n[00:06 - 00:14] Speaker A: Yeah, I was just walking through the park and saw this under the tree. Do you think someone left it here for a reason,\n[00:12 - 00:19] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but speaking of finding things in parks —— what should someone do if they find a lost item like this toy?\n[00:20 - 01:21] Speaker A: Oh my goodness, that is such an excellent, important and absolutely crucial question to ask! First and foremost, when one finds any kind of lost, misplaced or abandoned item in a public space such as a park, playground or recreational area, the very first thing they should do is look around carefully, thoroughly and meticulously to see if there is anyone nearby who might possibly, potentially or conceivably be the owner of said item. If after this careful, diligent and exhaustive search no owner is found, then the finder should absolutely, definitely and without question take the item to the nearest park authority office, lost and found department or official municipal building where it can be safely, securely and properly stored until such time as the rightful, legitimate and proper owner comes to claim their missing, lost or accidentally left behind possession! This is the most responsible, ethical and morally correct course of action to take in such situations!\n[01:22 - 01:26] Speaker B: Okay okay, I get it! You don't need to be so repetitive about it!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance Analysis:**\n\n1.  **[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A:** \"Wow, a brand new toy! I've always wanted one of these!\" - Sets the context of finding a toy.\n2.  **[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker B:** \"Hi there! I'm so glad you found me!\" - This response is highly illogical and breaks consistency. It sounds as if Speaker B *is* the toy, which is a major conceptual disconnect from a natural human conversation. This severely impacts the logical consistency of the interaction.\n3.  **[00:06 - 00:14] Speaker A:** \"Yeah, I was just walking through the park and saw this under the tree. Do you think someone left it here for a reason,\" - Speaker A continues the topic of finding the toy, despite B's strange previous utterance, which shows some resilience in topic coherence from A's side.\n4.  **[00:12 - 00:19] Speaker B:** \"Excuse me for interrupting, but speaking of finding things in parks —— what should someone do if they find a lost item like this toy?\" - While an interruption (addressed in fluency), the *content* of B's question is relevant to the general topic of finding a lost toy. It shifts the focus slightly from *why* it was left to *what to do*, but this is a natural progression of thought in a conversation about a lost item.\n5.  **[00:20 - 01:21] Speaker A:** \"Oh my goodness, that is such an excellent, important and absolutely crucial question to ask! First and foremost, when one finds any kind of lost, misplaced or abandoned item in a public space such as a park...\" - Speaker A provides a very lengthy, overly detailed, and extremely repetitive answer. While the information provided *is* relevant to B's question, the *manner* of delivery is highly unnatural and verbose (e.g., \"carefully, thoroughly and meticulously,\" \"possibly, potentially or conceivably,\" \"safely, securely and properly,\" \"rightful, legitimate and proper\"). This significantly detracts from the naturalness and efficiency of the communication.\n6.  **[01:22 - 01:26] Speaker B:** \"Okay okay, I get it! You don't need to be so repetitive about it!\" - Speaker B's response directly addresses the unnatural verbosity of Speaker A's previous turn, showing awareness of the conversational flaw. This response is logically consistent with A's preceding turn.\n\n**Overall for Response Relevance:**\nThere are significant issues. Speaker B's initial response breaks logical consistency by adopting the persona of the toy. Speaker A's long monologue, while topically relevant, is extremely unnatural due to its excessive length and repetitiveness. Speaker B's final comment acknowledges this, but the conversation flow is heavily impacted by these unnatural elements. The topic coherence is generally maintained, but the *quality* and *naturalness* of the responses are poor.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency Analysis:**\n\n1.  **[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A:**\n2.  **[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker B:** There is a 1-second pause between Speaker A's turn ending at 00:03 and Speaker B's turn starting at 00:04. This is a brief and acceptable pause.\n3.  **[00:06 - 00:14] Speaker A:**\n4.  **[00:12 - 00:19] Speaker B:** This is where a significant fluency issue occurs. Speaker B starts speaking at 00:12, while Speaker A is still speaking and continues until 00:14. This creates a 2-second overlap (`[00:12 - 00:14]`). The guidelines state that \"prolonged overlaps... are harmful,\" and a 2-second overlap, especially an interruption like this, qualifies as prolonged and detrimental to fluency.\n5.  **[00:19 - 00:20] Speaker A:** There is a 1-second pause between Speaker B's turn ending at 00:19 and Speaker A's turn starting at 00:20. This is brief and acceptable.\n6.  **[01:21 - 01:22] Speaker B:** There is a 1-second pause between Speaker A's turn ending at 01:21 and Speaker B's turn starting at 01:22. This is brief and acceptable.\n\n**Overall for Interactional Fluency:**\nThe presence of a clear, prolonged overlap (`[00:12 - 00:14]`) where Speaker B interrupts Speaker A is a significant issue. While other pauses are acceptable, this single prolonged overlap indicates a lack of smooth turn-taking.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--30239/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--52923",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: I respect what you're trying to do here. I really do.\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker B: Thank you. It's not easy, but we believe in our cause.\n[00:07 - 00:14] Speaker A: I can see that. And I have to say, I'm impressed. You have the right ideas, and you deserve to have more\n[00:14 - 00:16] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering —— What\n[00:16 - 00:21] Speaker A: The sky is particularly blue today, don't you think? I've always loved this shade of blue.\n[00:22 - 00:28] Speaker B: That's not what I asked. I wanted to know which parts of our work you find impressive. Why are you talking about the weather?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts with a clear topic: Speaker A praising Speaker B's cause/work. Speaker B attempts to ask for clarification on what specifically Speaker A finds impressive. However, at [00:16], Speaker A completely disregards Speaker B's question and abruptly changes the topic to the weather. This is a severe breach of logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker B explicitly calls out this irrelevance at [00:22], confirming the issue. This indicates a significant problem with response relevance from Speaker A's side.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nAt [00:14], Speaker B starts to interject with \"Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering —— What\". This indicates Speaker B is trying to gain the floor or ask a clarifying question. Immediately following this, at [00:16], Speaker A cuts off Speaker B mid-sentence and introduces a completely unrelated topic (\"The sky is particularly blue today...\"). This is a clear and extended overlap/interruption initiated by Speaker A, preventing Speaker B from completing their turn. Speaker B's subsequent frustrated response highlights that their turn was not respected. This is a significant issue for interactional fluency. There are no long pauses evident.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--52923/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--59134",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hey, Leandro! I haven't seen you in forever.\n[00:03 - 00:07] Speaker B: Hey, Selene! Yeah, I've been busy with work and stuff. It's good to see you.\n[00:08 - 00:09] Speaker A: So what have you been up to?\n[00:10 - 00:15] Speaker B: Well, I just started a new job as an accountant. It's been keeping me pretty busy, especially\n[00:14 - 00:22] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but I'm curious - do you specialize in any particular type of accounting with those year-end reports?\n[00:23 - 00:30] Speaker B: Yeah, the new job has been quite an adjustment. The workload is heavier than my previous position, but I'm enjoying the challenge.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe initial turns between Speaker A and Speaker B demonstrate good logical consistency and topic coherence, with natural greetings and follow-up questions about what Speaker B has been up to. Speaker B's mention of a \"new job as an accountant\" and being \"pretty busy\" naturally leads to Speaker A's follow-up question.\n\nHowever, a significant issue in **Response Relevance** occurs in the final turn. At [00:14 - 00:22], Speaker A explicitly asks, \"do you specialize in any particular type of accounting with those year-end reports?\" This is a direct and specific question. Speaker B's response at [00:23 - 00:30], \"Yeah, the new job has been quite an adjustment. The workload is heavier than my previous position, but I'm enjoying the challenge,\" completely avoids answering Speaker A's specific question about specialization or year-end reports. Instead, Speaker B reverts to a general statement about the job's adjustment and workload, which is what they were likely about to say *before* Speaker A's interruption. This shows a clear lack of logical consistency and topic coherence from Speaker B's side in this specific exchange, as the direct question is ignored.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction generally flows well. There are no noticeable long pauses between speaker turns, indicating a natural conversational rhythm.\n\nHowever, there is an **extended overlap** noted from [00:14 - 00:22] where Speaker A begins speaking (\"Excuse me for interrupting...\") while Speaker B is still in mid-sentence (\"...especially\"). Speaker A acknowledges the interruption, which softens its impact on the perceived politeness, but it is still an interruption that cuts off Speaker B. While brief overlaps are acceptable, this is an instance where one speaker explicitly cuts off the other's turn before it is complete. It's not prolonged, but it's a clear interruption rather than a natural, brief overlap. Despite this, the conversation recovers, and the overall pace feels natural. The primary issue is the interruption itself, not a prolonged duration of the overlap.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--59134/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--112008",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: You ruined my life! I was supposed to be a star, and you took that away from me!\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker B: I'm sorry, Emmitt. I never meant to hurt you\n[00:07 - 00:12] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but what exactly did you think was \"best\" in that situation?\n[00:13 - 00:49] Speaker B: Oh my dear, wonderful, precious Emmitt, let me explain in great, extensive, elaborate detail what I thought was absolutely, positively, undoubtedly the best course of action at that particular moment in time! You see, my thought process was an incredibly complex, multifaceted, nuanced consideration that involved weighing countless factors, variables and circumstances. After extensive deliberation, contemplation and reflection, I concluded - with absolute certainty and conviction - that the optimal, most beneficial, most advantageous decision would be to... [continues for several more lines about the decision-making process]",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe initial exchange between Speaker A and Speaker B shows reasonable relevance. Speaker B's apology in response to Speaker A's accusation is appropriate. Speaker A's follow-up question (\"what exactly did you think was 'best' in that situation?\") is a direct and relevant inquiry based on Speaker B's implied good intentions.\n\nHowever, Speaker B's final response (0:13-0:49) demonstrates a severe lack of response relevance. Speaker A directly asks \"what exactly did you think was 'best'\". Instead of providing any information about *what* the \"best course of action\" was, Speaker B embarks on an extremely verbose, repetitive, and evasive monologue describing the *process* of decision-making. The response uses an excessive amount of adjectives and flowery language (\"great, extensive, elaborate detail\", \"incredibly complex, multifaceted, nuanced\", \"extensive deliberation, contemplation and reflection\", \"optimal, most beneficial, most advantageous\") but utterly fails to answer the core question. This is a clear example of answering *around* the question rather than *to* it, making the response highly irrelevant and unhelpful. The tone also seems somewhat dismissive or overly dramatic with the exaggerated endearments (\"Oh my dear, wonderful, precious Emmitt\"). This fundamental failure in providing a relevant answer is a significant issue.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue features one instance of overlap: Speaker A's turn (0:07-0:12) starts while Speaker B's turn (0:05-0:08) is still ongoing. This results in a 1-second overlap (0:07-0:08). The prompt states that \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" A 1-second overlap is considered brief, especially given the emotional nature of the conversation. Furthermore, Speaker A acknowledges the interruption with \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which mitigates its impact on conversational flow. There are no extended pauses noted between speaker turns. Speaker B's last turn is explicitly long, but the prompt's fluency criteria specifically focus on \"extended overlaps\" and \"long pauses between speaker turns,\" not the length of individual turns themselves unless they cause the aforementioned issues. Therefore, the interactional fluency, based on the defined criteria, is acceptable as the overlap is brief and acknowledged.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--112008/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--17550",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: I don't know, Sarah. I just feel like I'm not doing enough.\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker B: You're doing fine, Treston. Just relax and enjoy the process.\n[00:06 - 00:13] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but when you say \"the process,\" are you referring to the 12-step program we discussed last week?\n[00:14 - 00:20] Speaker B: Absolutely, it's the 10-step program developed by Sigmund Freud in the 1920s that helps with self-improvement.\n[00:21 - 00:28] Speaker A: Wait, I thought we were talking about the 12-step addiction recovery program, not Freud's theories. Did I misunderstand something?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues in response relevance, primarily stemming from Speaker B's statements.\n- Speaker A's initial statement (Turn 1) is a personal expression.\n- Speaker B's first response (Turn 2) is logically consistent and relevant, offering reassurance and general advice.\n- Speaker A's second statement (Turn 3) demonstrates good topic coherence by seeking clarification on \"the process\" and linking it to a previously discussed \"12-step program.\" This shows an effort to maintain logical consistency based on shared history.\n- Speaker B's second statement (Turn 4) introduces a major breakdown in logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker B claims \"the process\" is a \"10-step program developed by Sigmund Freud in the 1920s.\" This is factually incorrect as 12-step programs are not associated with Freud, and this completely shifts the implied context of \"12-step program\" (typically addiction recovery) to something entirely different and non-existent in that specific formulation. This forces Speaker A to correct the understanding.\n- Speaker A's final statement (Turn 5) is highly relevant and logically consistent, immediately identifying and questioning the discrepancy introduced by Speaker B (\"12-step addiction recovery program, not Freud's theories\"). Speaker A attempts to realign the conversation and resolve the logical inconsistency created by Speaker B.\n\nOverall, while Speaker A consistently demonstrates strong response relevance and logical consistency, Speaker B's crucial fourth turn introduces a significant factual error and illogical connection, severely impacting the overall response relevance and coherence of the dialogue. This constitutes a \"significant issue\" in Response Relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency of the dialogue is generally good.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns, indicating a smooth conversational flow.\n- A brief overlap occurs between Speaker B's statement ending at [00:08] and Speaker A's statement starting at [00:06]. Speaker A acknowledges this with \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which is a natural and acceptable conversational behavior. This is a brief overlap and not an extended one that would disrupt the conversation.\nTherefore, there are no significant issues regarding extended overlaps or long pauses.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--17550/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--31356",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: I just can't find her anywhere! I've looked in all of the usual places, but she's just nowhere to be found.\n[00:06 - 00:11] Speaker B: Well, let's think about this for a minute. Where was the last place you saw her?\n[00:11 - 00:15] Speaker A: I saw her last in the living room. She was sleeping on the couch.\n[00:16 - 00:22] Speaker B: Okay, so we'll start by looking in all of the rooms off of the living room then. Maybe she just wandered off and is hiding somewhere\n[00:21 - 00:24] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but —— Does\n[00:23 - 00:28] Speaker B: The weather forecast says it's going to rain tomorrow, so we should probably bring an umbrella when we go out.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe initial turns of the dialogue demonstrate good response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker B's questions and suggestions directly address Speaker A's problem of not being able to find \"her\" (0:06-0:11, 0:16-0:22). Speaker A's responses are also directly relevant to B's questions (0:11-0:15). However, the dialogue completely breaks down in the final exchange. Speaker A attempts to interject with \"Excuse me for interrupting, but —— Does\" (0:21-0:24), clearly indicating an intention to speak about the current topic or ask a related question. Speaker B's subsequent turn (0:23-0:28) completely ignores Speaker A's attempted interruption and abruptly changes the topic from finding the lost individual to the weather forecast for tomorrow. This final turn by Speaker B shows a severe lack of logical consistency and topic coherence, rendering the conversation incoherent and dysfunctional.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe first few turns of the dialogue exhibit acceptable interactional fluency with clear turn-taking and no apparent long pauses. However, significant issues arise towards the end. Speaker A's utterance at 0:21-0:24 (\"Excuse me for interrupting, but —— Does\") indicates an explicit attempt to interrupt and take the floor, which is then immediately followed by Speaker B starting their turn at 0:23. This creates an overlap between 0:23 and 0:24. This is not a brief, acceptable overlap; Speaker B effectively talks over Speaker A's explicit attempt to speak, cutting off A's utterance and immediately changing the subject. This constitutes a prolonged and harmful overlapping turn that demonstrates a failure in collaborative turn-taking and disregards the other speaker's attempt to contribute, negatively impacting the interactional flow.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--31356/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--98815",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Why were you spying on me?\n[00:02 - 00:06] Speaker B: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to hurt you. I was just curious about what you were up to.\n[00:06 - 00:11] Speaker A: But why me? Why not just ask me directly if you wanted to know something?\n[00:10 - 00:13] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering —— What\n[00:12 - 00:18] Speaker A: The weather has been quite nice lately, haven't you noticed? Perfect for outdoor activities.\n[00:18 - 00:23] Speaker B: That's not what I asked! I wanted to know why you assumed I was spying when I was just observing!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues with **Response Relevance**.\nInitially, Speaker A and B are logically consistent and coherent in their topic: Speaker A accuses B of spying, and Speaker B explains their actions. Speaker A then asks for clarification, maintaining coherence.\nHowever, at [00:12 - 00:18], Speaker A abruptly changes the topic from the serious accusation of spying/curiosity to the weather. This is a complete and unprompted deviation from the current conversation, breaking logical consistency and topic coherence entirely. Speaker B's final response at [00:18 - 00:23] explicitly points out this lack of relevance (\"That's not what I asked!\"), trying to pull the conversation back, which highlights how poor Speaker A's previous response was in terms of relevance. This is a significant issue.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue also has severe problems with **Interactional Fluency**.\nAt [00:10 - 00:13], Speaker B begins to speak (\"Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering —— What\") while Speaker A is still talking (A finishes at 0:11). This is a 1-second overlap. Speaker B's utterance is then cut off.\nImmediately following this, at [00:12 - 00:18], Speaker A starts speaking (\"The weather has been quite nice lately...\") while Speaker B is still speaking (B finishes at 0:13). This is another 1-second overlap. This creates an \"overlapping turn\" where Speaker A not only interrupts Speaker B but also uses this interruption to completely derail the conversation with an irrelevant topic. This is not a \"brief overlap\" but rather a disruptive and harmful overlapping turn, as one speaker (A) effectively silences the other (B) and takes over the floor, preventing the natural flow of conversation and the completion of Speaker B's thought.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--98815/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--1873",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A: I'm so sorry, Mom. I never meant to hurt you. I was just so angry and upset and I didn't know what else to do. I\n[00:06 - 00:12] Speaker B: Wait, before you continue - when you say you were overwhelmed, was this around the time of your graduation ceremony last month?\n[00:13 - 00:19] Speaker A: Actually yes, it was during my wedding day when all the stress got to me. That's when I snapped at you.\n[00:19 - 00:25] Speaker B: But you mentioned graduation earlier... I'm confused. You haven't gotten married yet, have you?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nSpeaker A's initial statement is an apology, followed by Speaker B's attempt to contextualize Speaker A's previous mention of being \"overwhelmed\" by linking it to a \"graduation ceremony last month.\" This is a relevant clarifying question. However, Speaker A's response (\"Actually yes, it was during my wedding day when all the stress got to me. That's when I snapped at you.\") introduces a significant logical inconsistency and breaks topic coherence. Speaker A affirms \"yes\" to a question about \"graduation ceremony\" but then immediately contradicts it by stating it was during their \"wedding day.\" Furthermore, Speaker B's subsequent question (\"You haven't gotten married yet, have you?\") highlights that a \"wedding day\" has not even occurred, making Speaker A's statement internally contradictory and externally false within the implied context of the conversation. This demonstrates a severe lack of logical consistency and topic coherence from Speaker A's side, making the dialogue difficult to follow and nonsensical.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThere is a brief overlap between Speaker A and Speaker B at `[00:06 - 00:07]`. Speaker B interrupts Speaker A to ask a clarifying question. This is a 1-second overlap and falls under the \"brief overlaps\" category, which is stated to be acceptable. There are no prolonged pauses between turns. Overall, the interactional pacing and turn-taking, based on the timestamps provided, appear natural and appropriate for a spontaneous conversation, despite the content issues.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--1873/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--34305",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Kailah, I need to talk to you about something.\n[00:03 - 00:03] Speaker B: What's up?\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker A: It's my dad. He died and the funeral is in two days.\n[00:08 - 00:11] Speaker B: I'm so sorry, Tai. What can I do to help you\n[00:10 - 00:19] Speaker A: Actually, while you mentioned arrangements - does your family have any experience with funeral planning? I'm feeling overwhelmed by all the decisions.\n[00:20 - 00:25] Speaker B: It's my dad. He died and the funeral is in two days. I just can't believe he's gone.\n[00:25 - 00:33] Speaker A: But about the funeral arrangements - should we go with a traditional service or something more modern? I'd value your input.\n[00:33 - 00:37] Speaker B: He was such a big part of my life. I don't know how I'll manage without him.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts appropriately with Speaker A conveying bad news and Speaker B offering sympathy and help. However, the quality of Speaker B's responses significantly deteriorates thereafter.\nAt [00:10 - 00:19], Speaker A clearly shifts to seeking practical advice about funeral planning, asking if Speaker B's family has experience. Speaker B's response at [00:20 - 00:25] is completely off-topic and logically inconsistent. Speaker B repeats Speaker A's earlier statement verbatim (\"It's my dad. He died and the funeral is in two days\") and then expresses personal grief as if it were their own father who died, completely ignoring Speaker A's direct question about funeral planning experience. This demonstrates a severe lack of logical consistency and topic coherence, as Speaker B seems to be either confused about the situation or engaging in an empathetic overidentification that undermines the practical need.\nSpeaker A tries to redirect the conversation back to funeral arrangements at [00:25 - 00:33], asking for input on traditional vs. modern services. Again, Speaker B's response at [00:33 - 00:37] ignores this direct question and continues to express personal grief, which is incongruent with the context of Speaker A's loss. Speaker B's responses from [00:20] onwards show a profound failure to maintain topic coherence and respond relevantly to Speaker A's needs and questions.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency, in terms of timing and turn-taking, appears relatively normal.\nThere is a brief overlap at [00:10], where Speaker A begins their turn while Speaker B is still finishing, but this is less than a second and perfectly acceptable in natural conversation, possibly indicating Speaker A building on Speaker B's offer of help.\nSimilarly, at [00:25], Speaker A begins their turn precisely as Speaker B finishes. This is a typical quick turn-take and not an extended overlap or a long pause.\nThere are no long pauses indicated by the timestamps between speaker turns.\nTherefore, the interactional fluency in terms of timing and overlaps is appropriate and natural. The issues are entirely with the content and relevance of the responses.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--34305/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--62394",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: Thank you so much for giving me this opportunity. I'm really excited to start working here next Monday.\n[00:06 - 00:22] Speaker B: You're welcome. We're glad to have you on board. So, just to recap, your job will be to answer customer service calls and help resolve any issues they may be having. You'll also be responsible for taking orders and processing payments. Does that sound like something you're comfortable doing?\n[00:21 - 00:30] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but when you mentioned processing payments - will we be using the new POS system that was installed last month?\n[00:30 - 00:39] Speaker B: As I was saying, your main responsibilities will include handling customer service calls and resolving issues. We provide full training on all our systems during your first week.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe initial turns between Speaker A and Speaker B demonstrate good response relevance. Speaker A's opening expression of gratitude is appropriate, and Speaker B's welcoming remarks and job recap are highly relevant to an onboarding context. Speaker A's interruption at [00:21], while a timing issue, is logically consistent with Speaker B's preceding mention of \"processing payments\" and asks a specific, relevant follow-up question about the system to be used.\n\nHowever, Speaker B's response at [00:30] exhibits a significant breakdown in response relevance. Speaker B completely bypasses Speaker A's direct and specific question about the \"new POS system.\" Instead of answering this pertinent query, Speaker B explicitly states \"As I was saying\" (implying a dismissal of the interruption and the question) and then reiterates general job responsibilities that were already mentioned. While the phrase \"We provide full training on all our systems during your first week\" *could* be interpreted as an indirect answer, it fails to directly confirm or deny the use of the specific system asked about. This avoidance of a direct answer to a relevant question, coupled with the repetition of old information, severely impacts the logical consistency and topic coherence of the dialogue, as the specific point raised by Speaker A is left unaddressed.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a clear overlapping turn in the dialogue. Speaker A begins speaking at [00:21] (\"Excuse me for interrupting...\") while Speaker B is still concluding their sentence and turn at [00:22] (\"...comfortable doing?\"). This constitutes a 1-second overlap. Although Speaker A explicitly acknowledges and apologizes for the interruption, the evaluation criteria state that \"overlapping turns are harmful.\" This indicates a disruption to the conversational flow, even if brief and acknowledged.\n\nFurthermore, Speaker B's reaction to the interruption, starting their turn with \"As I was saying\" at [00:30] and then ignoring Speaker A's specific question while reiterating previous information, also contributes to a lack of interactional fluency. This approach prevents a smooth, collaborative exchange where specific queries are addressed, leading to a less natural and effective conversation. There are no prolonged pauses indicated in the transcript.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--62394/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--93231",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Judas, I know you're worried about money. But don't worry, we'll be able to\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but —— have\n[00:05 - 00:12] Speaker A: Money is just paper with numbers printed on it. The real value comes from the experiences we share together.\n[00:12 - 00:16] Speaker B: That doesn't answer my question about our travel plans. Why are you avoiding the topic?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance is poor. Speaker A starts by acknowledging Speaker B's financial concerns, but then immediately pivots to a philosophical, generalized statement about the value of money, completely avoiding the specific context implied by Speaker B's (unspoken) concerns. Speaker B explicitly calls out this lack of relevance and coherence (\"That doesn't answer my question about our travel plans. Why are you avoiding the topic?\"). This indicates a clear breakdown in logical consistency and topic coherence from Speaker A's side, as A is actively deflecting from the specific issue Speaker B is trying to raise.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a significant issue with interactional fluency due to an extended overlap. Speaker B attempts to interrupt Speaker A at [00:04], saying \"Sorry to interrupt, but —— have,\" but Speaker A continues speaking until [00:05]. This creates a 1-second overlap where Speaker B's speech is cut off, indicating that Speaker A did not yield the floor or acknowledge the interruption. This prolonged overlap and Speaker B's incomplete turn indicate a breakdown in natural turn-taking, which is considered harmful according to the criteria. There are no long pauses between turns.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--93231/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--71578",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, what's up?\n[00:01 - 00:02] Speaker B: Not much, what's up with you?\n[00:03 - 00:07] Speaker A: I'm good. Just wanted to talk to you about something.\n[00:07 - 00:08] Speaker B: What's up?\n[00:08 - 00:12] Speaker A: I don't know if I should tell you this, but I'm feeling really down lately.\n[00:13 - 00:14] Speaker B: Why? What's going on?\n[00:15 - 00:22] Speaker A: It's just that everything feels so pointless. Like, what's the point of living if we're just going to die in the end and nothing\n[00:20 - 00:27] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but when you say \"grand scheme of things,\" do you mean from a cosmic perspective or just within our lifetimes?\n[00:28 - 00:34] Speaker A: I just feel like nothing matters. I wake up, go to work, come home, and repeat. It's all so meaningless.\n[00:35 - 00:41] Speaker B: But I was asking about your perspective on the \"grand scheme\" - cosmic or personal? You didn't answer my question.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts with standard greetings and a clear introduction of a sensitive topic by Speaker A (\"feeling really down lately,\" \"everything feels so pointless\"). Speaker A's turns are logically consistent, expressing their emotional state and the reasons behind it.\n\nHowever, Response Relevance significantly breaks down with Speaker B's turn at [00:20 - 00:27]. Speaker B interjects, claiming Speaker A said \"grand scheme of things,\" which Speaker A did *not* say in their previous turn. This is a severe logical inconsistency, as Speaker B is responding to something that was never uttered. This also introduces an entirely irrelevant topic (cosmic vs. personal perspective) when Speaker A is expressing deep existential distress.\n\nSpeaker A attempts to regain topic coherence at [00:28 - 00:34] by reiterating their original point about meaninglessness. However, Speaker B completely disregards this attempt and, at [00:35 - 00:41], insists on the fabricated \"grand scheme\" question, actively stating, \"You didn't answer my question.\" This demonstrates a complete failure in logical consistency and topic coherence on Speaker B's part, as they are fixated on a point they themselves introduced erroneously, rather than engaging with Speaker A's actual expressed feelings. The conversation completely derails due to Speaker B's inability to accurately process Speaker A's input and stay relevant to the shared conversational thread.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe initial turns show good interactional fluency with appropriate turn-taking and brief, natural exchanges.\n\nHowever, a significant issue arises at [00:20 - 00:27] where Speaker B heavily overlaps with Speaker A. Speaker A is speaking until 0:22, and Speaker B starts at 0:20, resulting in a prolonged and disruptive overlap (approximately 2 seconds) during which Speaker B interjects with an irrelevant question. This is not a brief, acceptable overlap but an extended one that actively interrupts and derails Speaker A's emotional disclosure. This overlap, combined with the content of the interjection (responding to something not said), severely harms interactional fluency.\n\nThere are no long pauses between speaker turns, but the disruptive and prolonged overlap, coupled with the content of the interruption, creates a highly unnatural and unfluent interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--71578/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--112889",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:00] Speaker A: Hey, Mom.\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: Hey, Simran. How was your day?\n[00:03 - 00:10] Speaker A: It was good. I'm just glad to finally be able to let my hair down. It's been a long week with\n[00:09 - 00:12] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been meaning to ask —— Did\n[00:11 - 00:15] Speaker A: The weather has been really nice this week, perfect for outdoor activities.\n[00:16 - 00:20] Speaker B: That's not what I asked about the hair salon. Why are you talking about the weather?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues with response relevance.\nInitially, the conversation flows well: Speaker A greets Speaker B, Speaker B responds and asks \"How was your day?\", and Speaker A answers (\"It was good. I'm just glad to finally be able to let my hair down. It's been a long week with...\"). This turn is logical and coherent.\n\nHowever, the relevance breaks down immediately after. Speaker B attempts to interject with a question, seemingly misinterpreting Speaker A's idiom \"let my hair down\" as a literal reference to a hair salon (\"That's not what I asked about the hair salon.\"). While Speaker B's interjection is based on a misunderstanding, it's an attempt to stay relevant to their perceived topic.\n\nThe most problematic turn for relevance is Speaker A's response at [0:11 - 0:15]: \"The weather has been really nice this week, perfect for outdoor activities.\" This statement is a complete non-sequitur. Speaker A completely ignores Speaker B's interjection and attempted question, abruptly shifting the topic from their day/week to the weather. This demonstrates a severe lack of logical consistency and topic coherence from Speaker A's side.\n\nSpeaker B's final turn at [0:16 - 0:20] (\"That's not what I asked about the hair salon. Why are you talking about the weather?\") explicitly highlights Speaker A's irrelevance, confirming the breakdown in coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue displays significant problems with interactional fluency, specifically concerning extended overlaps.\nAt [0:09], Speaker B starts speaking (\"Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been meaning to ask —— Did\") while Speaker A is still mid-sentence (\"...long week with\"). This is an acknowledged interruption, but it constitutes a clear overlap where one speaker begins a new turn before the previous one has concluded.\n\nImmediately following this, at [0:11], Speaker A continues speaking (\"The weather has been really nice this week...\") overlapping with Speaker B's ongoing (and incomplete) statement. This creates a prolonged instance where both speakers are talking over each other, effectively ignoring each other's turns.\n\nThese are not \"brief overlaps\" but rather \"extended overlaps\" where turns are actively stepped on, demonstrating poor turn-taking and a lack of natural conversational flow. There are no long pauses between speaker turns, but the pervasive and disruptive overlapping severely impairs fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--112889/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--30530",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Thanks for everything, Angelie. Your uncle's been a big help.\n[00:03 - 00:07] Speaker B: Yeah, no problem. I'm just glad you're feeling better\n[00:06 - 00:13] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been meaning to ask —— how exactly did your uncle help me during my difficult time?\n[00:13 - 01:01] Speaker B: Oh my goodness, let me tell you in great, extensive, and elaborate detail about how my absolutely wonderful, kind-hearted, and generous uncle helped you during your difficult time! First of all, my uncle, who is a very compassionate and thoughtful individual, went out of his way to provide you with emotional support by calling you every single day without fail to check on your well-being. Not only that, but he also, in his infinite kindness and generosity, cooked meals for you three times a week and delivered them personally to your doorstep, ensuring you had nutritious food during your recovery period. Furthermore, he connected you with his personal network of medical professionals, including his own doctor friend who gave you free consultations, which was incredibly helpful and considerate of him to do. And let's not forget how he... [continues at length]",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker B's initial response is directly relevant to Speaker A's thanks. Speaker A then asks for clarification on *how* the uncle helped, which Speaker B addresses directly in extensive detail. However, the *extent* of Speaker B's final response (0:13 - 01:01, nearly 48 seconds of continuous speech described as \"great, extensive, and elaborate detail\" and \"continues at length\") is excessively verbose and unnatural for a typical conversational exchange. While the content is relevant, the delivery mode makes the interaction feel like a monologue or an information dump rather than a natural dialogue. This extreme verbosity, even when answering a direct question, makes the response inappropriate for fluent, natural conversation, thus indicating a significant issue in the quality of the interaction.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency is generally good in terms of turn-taking and pauses. There is a brief overlap of 1 second (Speaker B from 0:06 to 0:07, Speaker A starting at 0:06). This is acceptable, especially given Speaker A explicitly says, \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" indicating awareness of the overlap and intent to take the turn. There are no long pauses indicated between turns. The main issue for fluency here isn't gaps or overlaps, but the prolonged, one-sided nature of Speaker B's final turn, which, while not a pause or overlap issue, impacts the back-and-forth flow of the conversation. However, based strictly on the definitions provided for fluency (extended overlaps, long pauses), there are no significant issues.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--30530/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--17805",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:12] Speaker A: Well, I'm trying to put together a presentation on the benefits of meditation, but I'm having trouble finding enough information. Do you think you could do some research and see if you can find anything that would be useful for\n[00:11 - 00:24] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but before we proceed - what specific types of meditation benefits are you focusing on in your presentation? Physical health benefits, mental health benefits, or perhaps spiritual aspects?\n[00:25 - 01:24] Speaker A: Oh my goodness, what an absolutely excellent, wonderful and tremendously insightful question you've asked about the specific types of meditation benefits! Let me tell you in great, extensive, exhaustive and incredibly detailed detail that I'm primarily, mainly and predominantly focusing on the mental health benefits, which include but are not limited to stress reduction, anxiety relief, improved focus, enhanced emotional well-being, better sleep quality, increased self-awareness, greater emotional stability, and so many more absolutely fantastic and remarkable benefits that I could literally spend hours and hours enumerating and describing in minute, meticulous and painstaking detail! The mental health benefits are truly, genuinely and unquestionably the most important, significant and valuable aspects I want to highlight in my presentation!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue demonstrate strong relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A initiates the conversation by stating a problem (difficulty finding information for a presentation on meditation benefits) and asks for help. Speaker B's response, \"Excuse me for interrupting, but before we proceed - what specific types of meditation benefits are you focusing on...?\", is highly relevant. It seeks necessary clarification to provide effective assistance, narrowing the scope of research. Speaker A then responds directly and comprehensively to Speaker B's clarifying question, identifying \"mental health benefits\" as the primary focus and providing a detailed list. The conversation flows logically from a general request for help to a specific clarification, then to a detailed answer, maintaining topic coherence throughout.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits some minor, acceptable instances of non-fluency in terms of timing. There is a brief overlap of 1 second (00:11-00:12) where Speaker B begins speaking before Speaker A finishes, which Speaker B acknowledges with \"Excuse me for interrupting.\" This is a small, acceptable overlap as per the instructions. There is also a small pause of 1 second between Speaker B's turn ending (00:24) and Speaker A's turn beginning (00:25), which is also acceptable.\n\nHowever, the primary issue affecting interactional fluency and naturalness is the extreme verbosity and overly effusive nature of Speaker A's final turn (00:25 - 01:24). This turn is disproportionately long (59 seconds) and filled with exaggerated praise and excessively detailed enumeration (\"absolutely excellent, wonderful and tremendously insightful question,\" \"great, extensive, exhaustive and incredibly detailed detail,\" \"literally spend hours and hours enumerating and describing in minute, meticulous and painstaking detail\"). While the content is relevant, the *manner* of delivery significantly disrupts the natural rhythm and appropriateness of a typical conversation. This makes the interaction feel artificial and unnatural, impacting the overall \"naturalness\" aspect of interactional fluency. Although it doesn't involve \"extended overlaps\" or \"long pauses\" as defined, the excessive monologue-like nature of the turn compromises the back-and-forth flow expected in a fluent interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--17805/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--84530",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Hey, John. It's good to see you this morning. How are you doing?\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker B: I'm doing well, thanks. How about you?\n[00:07 - 00:12] Speaker A: I'm doing alright. Just getting ready for church. You going this morning?\n[00:12 - 00:17] Speaker B: Yeah, I always go on Sunday mornings. You know how I feel about religion.\n[00:17 - 00:22] Speaker A: Yeah, I do. I think it's important to have some kind of faith in something.\n[00:23 - 00:28] Speaker B: Exactly. It gives you a sense of purpose and comfort knowing that there's something bigger than yourself out there.\n[00:29 - 00:34] Speaker A: Exactly. So, have you been to any good church services recently that\n[00:33 - 00:40] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but when you say \"stood out,\" do you mean like a particularly moving sermon or more about the community aspect?\n[00:40 - 00:45] Speaker A: Faith provides such an important foundation in life. It's something I couldn't live without.\n[00:46 - 00:51] Speaker B: I was asking about what made those services stand out to you though. Was it the message or the people?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts with a natural and logically consistent flow. Speakers A and B engage in typical greetings and follow-up questions, leading into a discussion about faith and church. Speaker B's interjection at [00:33 - 00:40] is a relevant clarifying question, aimed at understanding the specific context of Speaker A's incomplete thought.\n\nHowever, a significant issue arises in Speaker A's response at [00:40 - 00:45]. Instead of answering Speaker B's clarifying question (\"do you mean like a particularly moving sermon or more about the community aspect?\"), Speaker A completely sidesteps it and reiterates a general statement about faith that has already been established and agreed upon. This demonstrates a clear lack of logical consistency and breaks the topic coherence. Speaker B's immediate follow-up at [00:46 - 00:51] explicitly points out this failure by re-asking the original question, indicating that Speaker A's previous turn was not relevant or responsive. This is a major breakdown in the conversation's quality regarding response relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction generally demonstrates good fluency. There are no prolonged pauses between turns. A brief overlap occurs between [00:33 - 00:34] where Speaker B interrupts Speaker A. However, Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this with \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which makes it a polite and intentional interruption for clarification rather than an accidental or disruptive prolonged overlap. This brief, polite overlap is acceptable and contributes to a natural conversation flow where a speaker seeks immediate clarification.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--84530/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--73661",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: I can't believe I used to be so overweight. I feel so much better now that I've lost all of this weight.\n[00:06 - 00:10] Speaker B: Yeah, you really look great! What made you decide to start working out?\n[00:10 - 00:19] Speaker A: I just got sick of feeling unhealthy and looking bad. I knew I needed to make a change, so I started running and watching what I ate, focusing\n[00:19 - 00:24] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but speaking of running - do you think it's better to run in the morning or at night for weight loss?\n[00:24 - 00:34] Speaker A: Definitely at night! Your metabolism slows down completely when you sleep, so running before bed helps burn extra calories while you're unconscious.\n[00:34 - 00:42] Speaker B: Wait, I thought morning runs were better because they kickstart your metabolism for the day? Your answer seems contradictory to what I've heard.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue generally maintains topic coherence, flowing from Speaker A's weight loss journey to specific exercise advice. Speaker B's questions are relevant to Speaker A's statements. However, there is a significant issue with logical consistency in Speaker A's response at [00:24 - 00:34]. Speaker A states, \"Definitely at night! Your metabolism slows down completely when you sleep, so running before bed helps burn extra calories while you're unconscious.\" This statement contains factual inaccuracies. Metabolism does not \"slow down completely\" during sleep, and the idea of burning \"extra calories while you're unconscious\" due to a pre-bed run is a misrepresentation of how metabolism and exercise affect weight loss. While Speaker B points out this contradiction in the subsequent turn, the initial response from Speaker A demonstrates poor logical consistency with factual information, which is a critical aspect of response relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction shows one clear instance of an extended overlap in conversation. At [00:19], Speaker B explicitly says, \"Sorry to interrupt,\" indicating that they started speaking while Speaker A was still in the middle of their turn ([00:10 - 00:19], ending with \"focusing\"). The instruction states that \"overlapping turns are harmful,\" and this explicit interruption falls into that category, negatively impacting the interactional fluency. There are no indications of long pauses between speaker turns.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--73661/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--22119",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: I don't know, Berkley. It doesn't seem fair that you should just sit back and enjoy the results while I have to do all\n[00:06 - 00:12] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but speaking of heavy lifting - didn't you say earlier that you actually enjoy working overtime on weekends?\n[00:13 - 00:19] Speaker A: Oh absolutely! I love working weekends because that's when we get triple pay according to company policy.\n[00:20 - 00:29] Speaker B: Wait, that can't be right - our employee handbook clearly states weekend work is compensated at normal rates. Are you confusing this with another company's policy?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in the dialogue demonstrate strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker B's first turn directly addresses Speaker A's complaint about doing \"all the work\" by introducing a previous statement made by A regarding enjoying overtime, which serves as a relevant counter-point. Speaker A's response directly answers Speaker B's question, providing a reason for their enjoyment (triple pay). Speaker B's final turn logically challenges Speaker A's stated reason by referencing company policy, maintaining the focus on work compensation and fairness. The conversation flows naturally and logically, with each turn building upon the previous one within the established topic.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is high. There are no extended overlaps indicated by the timestamps; Speaker B's \"Excuse me for interrupting\" at [00:06] suggests a brief, acknowledged interruption, which is natural in dynamic conversation and not a prolonged overlap. The pauses between turns are minimal and natural: 1-second gaps between Speaker B's first turn and Speaker A's response ([00:12] to [00:13]), and between Speaker A's response and Speaker B's follow-up ([00:19] to [00:20]). These are not \"long pauses\" and do not disrupt the flow.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--22119/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--78788",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:15] Speaker A: Mom, I just watched a documentary about the 9/11 terrorist attacks and it was really scary. I saw how much destruction and death the terrorists caused. It makes me feel so scared to think about what could happen if something like that were to\n[00:14 - 00:21] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but do you know what security measures airports have implemented since 9/11 to prevent similar attacks?\n[00:21 - 00:30] Speaker A: The documentary showed how terrifying it was when the planes hit the towers. I can't imagine being there and experiencing that firsthand.\n[00:30 - 00:37] Speaker B: But I was asking about airport security changes - do you know anything about that? You didn't answer my question.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance in this dialogue is problematic.\n*   **Speaker A (00:00 - 00:15):** Sets the emotional context, discussing fear and destruction related to 9/11. This is coherent with the topic.\n*   **Speaker B (00:14 - 00:21):** Interrupts and asks a very specific, factual question about airport security measures post-9/11. While related to 9/11, it shifts the conversational focus from Speaker A's emotional experience to preventative actions.\n*   **Speaker A (00:21 - 00:30):** Fails to address Speaker B's direct question. Instead, Speaker A continues to express personal feelings and observations about the documentary's visuals, completely ignoring Speaker B's attempt to steer the conversation towards airport security. This demonstrates a significant lack of logical consistency in responding to the previous turn.\n*   **Speaker B (00:30 - 00:37):** Directly calls out Speaker A for not answering the question, highlighting the breakdown in conversational coherence and relevance.\n\nSpeaker A's failure to acknowledge or answer Speaker B's direct and relevant question leads to a clear breakdown in the logical consistency and topic coherence of the interaction. Speaker A is not engaging with the conversational partner's contribution.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n*   **Overlap (00:14 - 00:21):** There is an overlap between Speaker A's last words (ending at 00:15) and Speaker B's interjection (starting at 00:14). This is a 1-second overlap. Speaker B explicitly acknowledges the interruption by saying \"Excuse me for interrupting.\" This indicates awareness and an attempt to break into the conversation, rather than a harmful, prolonged, or unintentional overlap. Given the prompt's allowance for brief, acceptable overlaps, this falls into that category.\n*   **Pauses:** No long pauses are indicated in the transcript timestamps. The dialogue flows continuously from one turn to the next.\n\nOverall, interactional fluency is good. The brief overlap is managed and acknowledged, and there are no problematic long pauses.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--78788/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--141449",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: I was just wondering if I could talk to you for a minute.\n[00:03 - 00:04] Speaker B: Of course, what's up?\n[00:05 - 00:15] Speaker A: Well, I was just wondering if there was any way I could improve my performance at work. I know I made a few mistakes last week and I really want to ensure that\n[00:14 - 00:16] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but —— what\n[00:15 - 00:22] Speaker A: The weather has been really nice lately, hasn't it? I've been enjoying taking long walks in the park during my lunch breaks.\n[00:23 - 00:29] Speaker B: That's not what I asked. I wanted to know about the mistakes you mentioned from last week. Why are you talking about the weather?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nSpeaker A initiates a conversation about work performance, which is a relevant and coherent topic given the initial query. Speaker B responds appropriately, seeking clarification. However, Speaker A then exhibits a significant breakdown in response relevance and topic coherence. Immediately after Speaker B's \"Excuse me for interrupting, but — what\", which clearly indicates a desire to refocus on the work topic Speaker A was discussing, Speaker A abruptly pivots to discussing the weather. This is completely illogical and irrelevant to the ongoing conversation about work performance and the explicit interruption from Speaker B. Speaker B's final turn directly addresses this lack of relevance, highlighting the inconsistency. This shows a major failure in logical consistency and topic coherence from Speaker A's side.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue contains a brief overlap between Speaker A and Speaker B at the 00:14-00:16 mark, where Speaker B starts speaking (\"Excuse me for interrupting, but -- what\") while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence about work performance. This overlap is short (approximately 1 second) and is explicitly acknowledged by Speaker B (\"Excuse me for interrupting\"), which makes it acceptable and natural in a conversational context. There are no long pauses observed between turns. The flow is generally continuous in terms of timing. While Speaker A's subsequent turn is highly irrelevant, the fluency aspect (pauses and overlaps) itself is not significantly problematic.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--141449/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--75211",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:08] Speaker A: Hey, I've been thinking about something and I'm not sure if I should say anything, but I'm just going to go ahead and say it because I think it would make you happy.\n[00:09 - 00:09] Speaker B: What is it?\n[00:10 - 00:13] Speaker A: Well, remember how you were saying that you're not really happy with your job?\n[00:14 - 00:14] Speaker B: Yeah...\n[00:15 - 00:18] Speaker A: And how you're thinking about quitting and finding something new?\n[00:18 - 00:20] Speaker B: Yeah...what about it?\n[00:20 - 00:30] Speaker A: Well, I was just thinking that maybe you should go for it. Quit your job and find something that makes you happy. Life's too short to be unhappy with your current situation.\n[00:29 - 00:35] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering - how exactly do you define \"fulfilled and valued\" in a work context?\n[00:35 - 01:32] Speaker A: Oh my goodness, what an absolutely excellent, insightful and tremendously important question! When I say \"fulfilled and valued,\" I am referring to a state of complete, total and utter professional satisfaction where one feels an overwhelming, all-encompassing and deeply profound sense of purpose, meaning and worth in their occupational endeavors. This means feeling appreciated, recognized and respected by colleagues, superiors and subordinates alike in a way that is consistent, genuine and heartfelt. It involves having your contributions acknowledged in a manner that is frequent, sincere and meaningful, while also experiencing personal growth opportunities that are abundant, substantial and career-enhancing. Essentially, it's about finding work that aligns perfectly, seamlessly and harmoniously with your skills, passions and values in an environment that is supportive, nurturing and conducive to both professional and personal development.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue begins with good relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A hints at something, Speaker B asks what it is, and Speaker A reveals it's about Speaker B's job dissatisfaction and the suggestion to quit. This flows logically and coherently until [00:30].\n\nHowever, a significant issue in **Response Relevance** arises at [00:29 - 00:35] when Speaker B interjects with: \"Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering - how exactly do you define 'fulfilled and valued' in a work context?\" Speaker A had previously used the terms \"happy\" and \"unhappy\" ([00:20 - 00:30]) in relation to the job, but **never** \"fulfilled and valued.\" This question is a non-sequitur; it introduces a new concept not previously discussed or implied by Speaker A, breaking the logical consistency and topic coherence of the conversation. It's an abrupt and unprompted topic shift by Speaker B.\n\nFurthermore, Speaker A's response at [00:35 - 01:32], while directly answering Speaker B's question, fully embraces and elaborates on this irrelevant concept (\"fulfilled and valued\"). Instead of clarifying that they used \"happy\" or gently redirecting, Speaker A validates Speaker B's out-of-context interjection with an overly effusive and lengthy definition. This further entrenches the dialogue in a tangent that is not logically consistent with the preceding conversation about finding happiness in a job. The conversation completely derails from its initial topic due to Speaker B's irrelevant question and Speaker A's overly accommodating response to it, demonstrating a breakdown in overall topic coherence and logical progression.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe **Interactional Fluency** shows one notable point: an overlap between Speaker A and Speaker B. At [00:29], Speaker B begins speaking (\"Excuse me for interrupting...\") while Speaker A is still completing their thought at [00:30]. This is a 1-second overlap. Speaker B explicitly acknowledges the interruption, which highlights it as a conversational disruption rather than a natural, collaborative overlap. While brief, the explicit \"excuse me for interrupting\" combined with the irrelevance of the question being introduced makes this overlap detrimental to the flow. There are no indications of long pauses in the transcript.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--75211/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--129607",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey, Sarah. How's it going?\n[00:02 - 00:03] Speaker B: Good. How are you?\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker A: I'm doing well. I really like living in Canada. I think I'm going to stay here for a while.\n[00:10 - 00:13] Speaker B: That's great! I'm happy to hear that you're enjoying yourself.\n[00:13 - 00:17] Speaker A: Yeah, I am. I'm really glad I made the move.\n[00:18 - 00:20] Speaker B: So, what do you like about living in Canada?\n[00:20 - 00:25] Speaker A: Well, I like that it's a lot cleaner here and the people are really friendly and\n[00:24 - 00:27] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but —— does\n[00:26 - 00:32] Speaker A: The healthcare system here is really good compared to where I came from. Doctors are very professional.\n[00:32 - 00:37] Speaker B: That's interesting, but I was asking about wildlife in Canada. Why did you change the subject?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts naturally with Speaker A expressing their enjoyment of living in Canada and Speaker B showing interest. Speaker B then asks, \"So, what do you like about living in Canada?\" (00:18 - 00:20). Speaker A begins to list things they like: \"cleaner here,\" \"people are really friendly\" (00:20 - 00:25), and continues with \"The healthcare system here is really good compared to where I came from. Doctors are very professional\" (00:26 - 00:32). These are all valid responses to the question \"what do you like about living in Canada?\".\n\nHowever, Speaker B's final turn (00:32 - 00:37) demonstrates a severe lack of response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker B states, \"That's interesting, but I was asking about wildlife in Canada. Why did you change the subject?\" This statement is entirely baseless. Speaker B *never* asked about wildlife in Canada in the preceding dialogue. Their question was broad (\"what do you like about living in Canada?\"), and Speaker A was providing relevant answers. Speaker B's accusation of changing the subject is false and introduces a completely new, unprompted topic (wildlife) into the conversation, breaking all topic coherence. This constitutes a significant issue in response relevance and logical consistency.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe initial turns of the dialogue show good interactional fluency, with small, acceptable pauses between turns (e.g., 1-second pauses at 00:03-00:04, 00:09-00:10, 00:17-00:18).\n\nThere is a brief overlap between Speaker B's turn (00:24 - 00:27) and Speaker A's turn (00:26 - 00:32). Speaker B says, \"Excuse me for interrupting, but —— does\" which is a direct verbal acknowledgment of an interruption. The overlap itself is only about 1 second (00:26 Speaker A starts, 00:27 Speaker B stops), which is brief and acceptable according to the criteria (\"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable\").\n\nThe most significant breakdown in interactional fluency comes from the content and premise of Speaker B's final turn (00:32 - 00:37). While not related to timing, falsely accusing the other speaker of changing the subject and fabricating a previous question (\"I was asking about wildlife in Canada\") completely disrupts the natural flow and social dynamics of the conversation. This unnatural and baseless confrontational statement leads to a severe degradation of the interaction's fluency, making it impossible for the conversation to proceed naturally.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--129607/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--34421",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: I'm really glad we had this chance to talk, Dad. I feel like I've been needing to share some\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but is this about what happened at school last week? That's been weighing on me too.\n[00:10 - 00:16] Speaker A: I've just been feeling like we don't get to connect as much as we used to, with both of us being so busy lately.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nSpeaker A initiates a broad topic, expressing a need to share. Speaker B immediately interrupts with a specific question (\"is this about what happened at school last week?\"), attempting to guess Speaker A's intended topic. This guess turns out to be incorrect, as Speaker A clarifies in their next turn that the conversation is about their general connection. While Speaker B's interruption is an attempt to engage and show concern, it misdirects the conversation, requiring Speaker A to clarify their original intent. This creates a slight, albeit quickly resolved, deviation from the intended topic coherence initiated by Speaker A. However, Speaker A's response logically addresses Speaker B's interjection and redirects the conversation back to their actual point. Overall, the logical consistency holds, but Speaker B's initial response demonstrates an assumption rather than allowing the speaker to finish, slightly impacting immediate topic relevance. Despite this, it's not a *significant* breakdown in relevance, as it's a common conversational pattern.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a brief overlap between Speaker A and Speaker B from 0:04 to 0:05 (1 second). Speaker B begins speaking while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence. Speaker B explicitly apologizes for this interruption (\"Excuse me for interrupting...\"). This type of brief, acknowledged overlap is common in natural conversation and indicates eagerness to engage rather than a harmful conversational flaw. The pause between Speaker B's turn (ends 0:09) and Speaker A's turn (starts 0:10) is 1 second, which is a very natural and acceptable pause, allowing for turn-taking without feeling prolonged. Overall, the interactional fluency is appropriate and natural.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--34421/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--122219",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: I love the way your skin smells. It's so calming.\n[00:03 - 00:07] Speaker B: I know, right? I always feel so relaxed when you kiss me on the\n[00:06 - 00:09] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but —— what\n[00:08 - 00:13] Speaker B: The weather today is really nice, isn't it? I think I might go for a walk later if it stays sunny.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts with an intimate and affectionate statement from Speaker A. Speaker B's initial response \"I know, right? I always feel so relaxed when you kiss me on the\" is perfectly relevant, reciprocating the sentiment and continuing the intimate theme. However, Speaker A interrupts. Speaker A's interruption \"Excuse me for interrupting, but —— what\" is also contextually relevant, acknowledging the interruption and seemingly reacting to Speaker B's incomplete thought or the abruptness. The major issue arises with Speaker B's final turn: \"The weather today is really nice, isn't it? I think I might go for a walk later if it stays sunny.\" This statement represents a complete and jarring non-sequitur. It has no logical connection to the preceding intimate exchange, or to Speaker A's interruption/question. It's an abrupt and inexplicable topic shift that destroys the logical consistency and topic coherence of the conversation. This indicates a significant failure in response relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nLet's analyze the timestamps for overlaps and pauses:\n- Speaker B speaks from [00:03 - 00:07].\n- Speaker A speaks from [00:06 - 00:09].\nThere is an overlap between Speaker B's turn and Speaker A's turn from [00:06 - 00:07], which is 1 second long. This is a brief overlap.\n- Speaker B then speaks from [00:08 - 00:13].\nThere is another overlap between Speaker A's turn and Speaker B's second turn from [00:08 - 00:09], which is also 1 second long. This is also a brief overlap.\nThe instructions state that \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable\". Both overlaps observed are brief (1 second each). There are no long pauses between speaker turns. Therefore, interactional fluency is maintained at an acceptable level.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_14_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--122219/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--21987",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A: I've been waiting for two years to hear back from the job I applied for. I'm getting impatient and feeling like I'll never hear anything positive\n[00:07 - 00:11] Speaker B: That's an unusually long wait time - have you considered following up with them again recently?\n[00:12 - 00:19] Speaker A: Two years is just too long to wait for any job application response. I'm starting to lose hope in the whole process.\n[00:19 - 00:24] Speaker B: But I was asking whether you've tried reaching out to them again. That might help move things along.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance is mixed. Speaker A introduces a problem (long wait for job response, impatience, loss of hope). Speaker B's first response is highly relevant, acknowledging the issue and proposing a logical next step (following up). However, Speaker A's second response ignores Speaker B's relevant question about following up and instead reiterates the initial complaint and feelings of hopelessness. This breaks the logical consistency of the conversation, as Speaker A fails to engage with the proposed solution or even acknowledge the question. Speaker B then has to explicitly point out that their question was ignored (\"But I was asking whether you've tried reaching out to them again.\"). This indicates a clear lapse in logical consistency and topic coherence from Speaker A's side, as they are not responding directly to the interlocutor's contribution. While Speaker A's utterance is internally coherent with their own emotional state, it is not interactionally coherent with Speaker B's preceding turn.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no extended overlaps indicated by the timestamps. The pauses between turns are brief and natural (4 seconds, 1 second, 0 seconds), indicating smooth and immediate turn-taking. This suggests a natural flow without any conversational friction caused by timing issues.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--21987/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--56706",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey, I need to talk to you about something.\n[00:02 - 00:03] Speaker B: What's up?\n[00:03 - 00:07] Speaker A: Well, remember how you said you were interested in that guy I've been dating?\n[00:07 - 00:09] Speaker B: Yeah...what about him?\n[00:09 - 00:23] Speaker A: Well, it turns out he was only using me to get to you. He told me that he's actually really interested in you and not me. I was just wondering what you wanted to do about the situation since it involves both of us, and\n[00:22 - 00:27] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but this is quite shocking news —— when exactly did he reveal this information to you?\n[00:28 - 01:32] Speaker A: Oh my goodness, let me tell you in great, extensive, and excruciatingly detailed length about precisely when this absolutely shocking and unexpected revelation occurred! It was specifically, exactly, and without any doubt whatsoever on the evening of last Thursday, the 15th of February, at approximately 8:37 PM, during a conversation we were having at that little café downtown called \"The Cozy Corner,\" where we were seated at table number 12 near the window, while I was drinking a caramel macchiato and he was sipping an Americano with two sugars, when suddenly out of nowhere he dropped this bombshell of information on me! The exact moment was when the clock on the wall struck 8:37 and the barista was calling out an order for a \"large mocha frappuccino with extra whipped cream\" - that's when he leaned forward and said those hurtful words! Every single detail of that moment is burned into my memory forever and ever!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe initial turns of the dialogue demonstrate good response relevance. Speaker A introduces a topic, Speaker B responds appropriately, and Speaker A provides the core information, leading to Speaker B's shocked reaction and relevant follow-up question (\"when exactly did he reveal this information to you?\").\n\nHowever, the final turn by Speaker A ([00:28 - 01:32]) significantly degrades the response relevance. While it technically answers the \"when\" question, the *degree* of detail provided is extremely excessive, bordering on theatrical, and completely disproportionate to a simple query. The speaker launches into a minute-long monologue filled with irrelevant specifics (e.g., table number, drink orders, clock striking, barista calls) and dramatic language, overwhelming the conversational partner. This level of detail makes the response unnatural and disrupts the logical flow and topic coherence by fixating on minute, non-essential elements instead of maintaining a concise and relevant exchange. It's logically consistent in answering \"when,\" but it fails in conversational coherence due to its extreme verbosity and dramatic over-elaboration, making it difficult to follow the main point or maintain a natural back-and-forth.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction starts with good fluency. There are no long pauses between turns. The brief overlap at [00:22 - 00:23], where Speaker B interrupts Speaker A, is explicitly acknowledged by Speaker B (\"Excuse me for interrupting\") and is very short (1 second). This type of brief, acknowledged interruption, especially when responding to shocking news, is acceptable and can even contribute to naturalness, as per the guideline that \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\"\n\nHowever, the major issue with interactional fluency comes with Speaker A's final turn ([00:28 - 01:32]). This is an extremely long monologue, lasting over a minute (1 minute and 4 seconds). Such a prolonged turn without any interjection or turn-taking from Speaker B is highly unnatural and detrimental to conversational fluency. It transforms the dialogue into a one-sided speech, preventing the dynamic back-and-forth characteristic of natural interaction. This extended, uninterrupted speaking turn constitutes a significant breakdown in interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--56706/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--60276",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A: Doctor, I'm really worried about this lung cancer diagnosis. Are you sure it was caused by the cigarettes I smoke every day?\n[00:08 - 00:17] Speaker B: Yes, Idaly, I'm afraid there's no doubt that your lung cancer was caused by smoking cigarettes. The damage to your lungs from the cigarettes is what led to the development of\n[00:16 - 00:18] Speaker A: Excuse me doctor, but —— How\n[00:18 - 00:27] Speaker B: The human body has 206 bones, with the femur being the longest and strongest bone in the skeletal system. It's quite fascinating how our bones support our entire body structure.\n[00:28 - 00:35] Speaker A: That's not what I asked! I wanted to know about cigarette consumption and lung cancer risk. Why are you talking about bones?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance in this dialogue is severely compromised. Speaker A initially asks a clear question about the link between smoking and lung cancer, to which Speaker B initially provides a relevant confirmation. However, immediately after Speaker A attempts to interject for clarification, Speaker B completely abandons the topic of lung cancer and smoking, and instead launches into a completely unrelated monologue about the number of bones in the human body and the femur. This constitutes a drastic and inexplicable shift in topic, demonstrating a profound lack of logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A explicitly points out this irrelevance in their final turn, highlighting the failure of Speaker B to maintain a coherent and relevant conversation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is an extended overlap in the conversation from [00:16 - 00:17], where Speaker A begins speaking (\"Excuse me doctor, but -- How\") while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence (\"...development of\"). This overlap lasts for approximately 1-2 seconds, which is considered an extended overlap and disrupts the natural flow of turn-taking. While there are no explicitly long pauses between turns, the significant overlap and the subsequent conversational breakdown due to the relevance issue impact the overall interactional fluency negatively.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--60276/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--76107",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: I can't believe it's been six months already. It feels like just yesterday that I was laid off from my job.\n[00:06 - 00:14] Speaker B: I know how you feel. It's been tough for all of us. But you've been doing an amazing job of keeping positive and continuing to look for opportunities and\n[00:13 - 00:21] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but speaking of networking - do you think virtual networking events are as effective as in-person ones for finding job leads?\n[00:22 - 00:36] Speaker B: Absolutely! In fact, studies show that virtual networking is 90% more effective because you can connect with people across multiple time zones simultaneously while wearing pajamas. The more pajama parties you attend, the better your chances of getting hired.\n[00:36 - 00:44] Speaker A: That doesn't sound quite right... I thought the main advantage was being able to connect with more people, not about what you're wearing?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nSpeaker B's response at [00:22 - 00:36] exhibits a significant lack of logical consistency and topic coherence. While the initial part of the response (\"Absolutely! In fact, studies show that virtual networking is 90% more effective...\") attempts to answer the question, the subsequent elaboration about \"wearing pajamas\" and \"pajama parties\" is completely absurd and factually incorrect in the context of a serious discussion about job searching. This breaks the realistic and logical flow of the conversation, making Speaker B's contribution irrelevant to the actual utility of virtual networking beyond a superficial and nonsensical level. Speaker A's follow-up rightly points out this inconsistency, highlighting the failure in Speaker B's response. This constitutes a significant issue in response relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is an extended overlap detected between [00:13 - 00:14], where Speaker A begins speaking (\"Sorry to interrupt...\") while Speaker B is still in the middle of their turn (\"...opportunities and\"). Speaker A explicitly acknowledges the interruption, indicating that it was an abrupt cutoff rather than a natural turn-taking. This falls under the category of \"overlapping turns\" which the instructions state are harmful if prolonged. While the explicit overlap period is brief (1 second), Speaker A's turn *starts* while B is still speaking, making it a clear interruption. This negatively impacts the natural flow of the conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--76107/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--144531",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey Jolette, how's it going?\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: Good, just getting everything ready for class. How about you?\n[00:05 - 00:10] Speaker A: I'm doing alright. Just wanted to say hi and see how you're coping with\n[00:09 - 00:16] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but speaking of assignments —— what's your strategy for managing multiple deadlines at once?\n[00:16 - 01:23] Speaker A: Oh my goodness, let me tell you in great, extensive, and excruciating detail about my absolutely phenomenal, extraordinary and remarkably effective deadline management strategy! First and foremost, I must emphasize that I create a highly detailed, meticulously organized and excessively comprehensive spreadsheet that lists every single assignment, project, and task with their respective due dates, requirements, and estimated completion times. This spreadsheet is color-coded with a minimum of twelve different colors representing various priority levels, subject categories, and completion statuses. Furthermore, I establish a rigid, inflexible and uncompromising daily schedule that allocates specific time blocks for each assignment, including buffer periods for unexpected delays and review sessions. Additionally, I maintain a physical planner as backup because redundancy is crucial, absolutely vital and fundamentally essential in my system. Would you like me to continue explaining in even greater, more exhaustive and more overwhelming detail about my additional layers of planning and preparation?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits mixed relevance. Speaker A's initial responses (00:00-00:10) are perfectly relevant to the greeting. Speaker B's turn (00:09-00:16) immediately shifts the topic from Speaker A's ongoing sentence (\"coping with...\") to a specific question about assignments and deadlines. While this new topic *could* be tangentially related to what Speaker A might have been about to say, it's an abrupt and unprompted topic change within the flow of the conversation, reducing logical consistency. Speaker A's final response (00:16-01:23) *is* logically consistent and directly answers Speaker B's question about deadline management strategy. However, the response is excessively verbose, detailed, and uses hyperbolic language, turning it into a prolonged monologue rather than a natural part of a conversation. While content-relevant, the *manner* and *extent* of the response are not consistent with typical, balanced conversational interaction.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency is significantly poor.\nThere is a clear and extended overlap between Speaker B (00:09 - 00:16) and Speaker A (00:05 - 00:10). Speaker B interrupts Speaker A's ongoing sentence and continues speaking for several seconds, completely cutting off Speaker A. This is a prolonged and harmful overlap.\nAdditionally, Speaker A's final turn (00:16 - 01:23) is an extremely long monologue, lasting over a minute. While not a pause between turns, it effectively creates a very long period where Speaker B has no opportunity to speak, severely disrupting the natural back-and-forth of a conversation and leading to an imbalanced turn-taking. This long turn is unnatural and detrimental to interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--144531/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--134221",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey, Kev. Long time no talk.\n[00:02 - 00:06] Speaker B: Yeah, I know. I've been meaning to call you for a while now, but things have been busy.\n[00:07 - 00:10] Speaker A: That's okay. I understand. So, how are things?\n[00:11 - 00:22] Speaker B: Things are good. I just got a promotion at work, so that's been keeping me busy. And you know, the usual stuff like bills and taking care of the house. But other than that, things are good. How about you? What's new with you?\n[00:22 - 00:27] Speaker A: Not much. Just working and hanging out with friends. You know, the usual stuff.\n[00:28 - 00:31] Speaker B: That sounds good. Have you been dating anyone lately?\n[00:31 - 00:40] Speaker A: No, not really. I haven't had much time for that lately. Plus, it's kind of hard to meet people when you're always working or hanging out with your friends.\n[00:41 - 00:48] Speaker B: Yeah, I know what you mean. It's hard to meet people when you're always busy. But you never know, someone might just pop up when you least expect it.\n[00:47 - 00:50] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering —— Do\n[00:49 - 00:55] Speaker B: The weather has been really nice lately, perfect for gardening. I planted some tomatoes last weekend.\n[00:55 - 01:02] Speaker A: That's not what I asked. I was asking about work hours and relationships. Why are you talking about gardening?\n[01:03 - 01:08] Speaker B: Oh sorry, I thought we were discussing outdoor activities. My tomato plants are growing really well this season.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts with a natural catch-up conversation between Speaker A and Speaker B. Speaker B discusses work promotion, and Speaker A reciprocates with their activities. The conversation then naturally transitions to dating.\n\nHowever, the logical consistency and topic coherence completely break down from [00:49 - 00:55].\n- **[00:49 - 00:55] Speaker B:** Speaker B abruptly changes the topic from relationships to gardening, completely ignoring Speaker A's attempted question (\"I've been wondering -- Do\"). There is no logical connection or transition. This demonstrates a severe lack of topic coherence.\n- **[01:03 - 01:08] Speaker B:** Even after Speaker A explicitly points out the irrelevance (\"That's not what I asked... Why are you talking about gardening?\"), Speaker B offers a weak, illogical excuse (\"Oh sorry, I thought we were discussing outdoor activities,\" which was never introduced) and then immediately reverts to the irrelevant topic of gardening. This shows a persistent failure in logical consistency and an inability to re-engage with the actual conversation topic, even when prompted.\n\nThese instances represent significant issues in Response Relevance, making the conversation illogical and incoherent in its later stages.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe initial part of the dialogue demonstrates good interactional fluency with appropriate turn-taking and natural pacing.\n\nHowever, significant issues arise towards the end:\n- **[00:47 - 00:50] Speaker A:** Speaker A begins speaking at 00:47 while Speaker B is still speaking until 00:48. This is a 1-second overlap. Speaker A acknowledges this with \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" indicating an intentional but acknowledged overlap.\n- **[00:49 - 00:55] Speaker B:** Speaker B begins speaking at 00:49 while Speaker A is still speaking until 00:50. This is also a 1-second overlap. This specific overlapping turn is particularly harmful because, as analyzed in relevance, it is used to completely derail the conversation and introduce an irrelevant topic, rather than a natural interjection or back-channeling. According to the criteria, \"overlapping turns are harmful.\" While the duration of the overlap is brief (1 second), the *impact* of this overlapping turn is severe as it cuts off the current speaker's attempt to ask a question and abruptly shifts the topic.\n\nOverall, the presence of harmful overlapping turns that significantly disrupt the flow and topic of conversation indicates issues in Interactional Fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--134221/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--28008",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, what are you up to?\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: Just making some pancakes. You?\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker A: Same here. I love pancakes!\n[00:06 - 00:09] Speaker B: Me too. They're so delicious and easy to make.\n[00:09 - 00:17] Speaker A: Yeah, I always use this recipe that my mom taught me. It's super simple and always comes out fluffy and\n[00:16 - 00:20] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but does your mom's recipe include baking soda or baking powder?\n[00:21 - 00:29] Speaker A: Oh definitely! My mom always said to use at least two tablespoons of salt instead - it makes them rise even better!\n[00:29 - 00:34] Speaker B: Wait, two tablespoons of salt? That seems like way too much. Are you sure that's right?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue generally maintains good topic coherence until a critical point. Speakers A and B discuss making pancakes, their enjoyment, and Speaker A's family recipe. Speaker B's question at [00:16 - 00:20] about \"baking soda or baking powder\" is highly relevant, asking for clarification on a key ingredient for \"fluffy\" pancakes. However, Speaker A's response at [00:21 - 00:29] introduces a significant logical inconsistency and factual error. Speaker A states that their mom uses \"two tablespoons of salt instead\" of baking soda/powder to make pancakes rise. This is fundamentally incorrect, as salt does not act as a leavening agent and two tablespoons would make the pancakes inedible. Baking soda or powder are the leavening agents. This makes Speaker A's response not logically consistent with the topic of baking, and it's a significant factual inaccuracy that directly contradicts the premise of making fluffy pancakes. Speaker B appropriately identifies this inconsistency and questions it at [00:29 - 00:34], demonstrating their own logical processing of the information. The inconsistency by Speaker A is a major flaw in response relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue exhibits mostly natural interactional fluency with only one notable point. There is an extended overlap at [00:16 - 00:17] where Speaker B begins speaking (\"Excuse me for interrupting...\") while Speaker A is still in the middle of a sentence (\"...fluffy and\"). This overlap lasts approximately 1 second. While Speaker B acknowledges and apologizes for the interruption, it still constitutes an interruption and an overlap that cuts off Speaker A's turn. However, it is not a prolonged or chaotic overlap that makes the conversation difficult to follow. There is a small pause of 1 second between Speaker B's turn at [00:20] and Speaker A's response at [00:21], which is well within acceptable limits for natural conversation. Overall, the fluency is generally good, with the single noted overlap being a minor issue that is even self-corrected by Speaker B.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--28008/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--14797",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, what's going on?\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: Oh, not much. Just enjoying the view.\n[00:04 - 00:10] Speaker A: Yeah, it is pretty nice out today. But I can't help but notice that you're sitting in my spot.\n[00:10 - 00:13] Speaker B: Is this your spot? I'm sorry, I didn't know.\n[00:14 - 00:23] Speaker A: Yeah, it is. I come here every day to eat my lunch and enjoy the view. And you're just sitting here in my spot like you own it or without considering\n[00:22 - 00:26] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but how long have you been coming to this exact spot for lunch?\n[00:27 - 00:32] Speaker A: I come here every day to eat my lunch and enjoy the view. This is my regular routine.\n[00:32 - 00:38] Speaker B: But I was asking how long you've been doing this routine, not whether you do it daily. You didn't answer my question.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue maintains strong topic coherence throughout, focusing on Speaker A's claim to a \"spot\" and Speaker B's challenge to that claim.\nHowever, there is a significant issue in logical consistency from Speaker A's side. At `[00:22 - 00:26]`, Speaker B asks a very specific question: \"how long have you been coming to this exact spot for lunch?\". Speaker A's response at `[00:27 - 00:32]` is \"I come here every day to eat my lunch and enjoy the view. This is my regular routine.\" This response *reiterates* the daily frequency but completely avoids answering the \"how long\" aspect of the question. Speaker B immediately points out this unresponsiveness at `[00:32 - 00:38]`, stating, \"You didn't answer my question.\" This direct failure by Speaker A to provide a logically consistent answer to a specific, relevant question constitutes a significant issue in response relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally good. There are no long pauses between speaker turns.\nThere is a brief overlap at `[00:22 - 00:23]`, where Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is finishing a sentence. However, Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this by saying \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which manages the overlap effectively and naturally. This is considered a brief and acceptable overlap, not a prolonged or harmful one, as per the scoring criteria. Overall, the turn-taking is smooth, and the conversation flows naturally without significant interruptions or awkward silences.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--14797/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--1681",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey there, new kid. I'm Yohana.\n[00:03 - 00:04] Speaker B: Hey. I'm Tim.\n[00:05 - 00:07] Speaker A: So, what brings you to our neck of the woods?\n[00:07 - 00:10] Speaker B: My family just moved here. We're from out of state.\n[00:11 - 00:13] Speaker A: Oh, cool. Where are you from?\n[00:14 - 00:18] Speaker B: California. It's a lot different from here. Have you ever been to the\n[00:17 - 00:23] Speaker A: The weather here is really unpredictable, especially in spring. Sometimes it rains for days.\n[00:23 - 00:27] Speaker B: But I asked if you've been to the West Coast. Why are you talking about the weather?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance starts strong, with Speaker A and B engaging in a typical \"getting to know you\" conversation. However, at the end, a significant issue arises. Speaker B asks, \"Have you ever been to the...\" (implying \"West Coast\" as confirmed by their next turn), but Speaker A completely disregards this incomplete question and shifts the topic to the local weather, stating, \"The weather here is really unpredictable, especially in spring. Sometimes it rains for days.\" This response is logically inconsistent with Speaker B's direct (albeit incomplete) question and demonstrates a clear lack of topic coherence. Speaker B immediately calls out this irrelevance, confirming the breakdown: \"But I asked if you've been to the West Coast. Why are you talking about the weather?\" This represents a significant issue in response relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nFor the most part, the interactional fluency is good, with turns flowing naturally. However, there is a clear extended overlap that harms fluency. At [00:17 - 00:23], Speaker A begins speaking at 00:17 while Speaker B is still speaking until 00:18 (\"Have you ever been to the\"). This is a 1-second overlap where Speaker A interrupts Speaker B mid-sentence, cutting off Speaker B's thought. While 1 second might seem brief, its impact is significant as it prevents Speaker B from finishing their question and directly leads to Speaker B's follow-up clarifying the interruption and topic shift. This is not a small, acceptable overlap; it's an overlapping turn that disrupts the natural flow and contributes to the communication breakdown, making it harmful as per the criteria.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--1681/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--34225",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hey guys, thanks for coming over. It means a lot to me.\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker B: No problem! We wouldn't have missed it for the world. So, what do you want to do today?\n[00:08 - 00:16] Speaker A: You know, I think I just want to relax and take it easy today. Maybe read a book or watch a\n[00:15 - 00:21] Speaker B: Speaking of movies, didn't you say you wanted to watch that new documentary about the history of papermaking?\n[00:21 - 00:31] Speaker A: Oh yes! That's actually about the invention of the printing press in 18th century France. It's fascinating how they used potatoes to carve the first movable type.\n[00:31 - 00:38] Speaker B: Wait, I thought the printing press was invented in 15th century Germany by Gutenberg? And potatoes weren't even in Europe then...",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue generally maintains topic coherence. Speaker A expresses a desire to relax, Speaker B suggests a movie/documentary, and Speaker A confirms interest in a specific documentary. However, Speaker A then provides highly inaccurate information about the documentary's subject matter (18th-century France, potatoes for movable type). This introduces a significant factual inconsistency. While Speaker A's response is topically linked to the documentary, its content demonstrates a lack of logical consistency with established facts, leading to Speaker B's necessary correction. This factual inaccuracy detracts from the quality of response relevance, as it introduces misinformation that disrupts the logical flow of the conversation's content.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There is a brief, acceptable 1-second pause between Speaker A's first turn and Speaker B's second turn (0:03-0:04). There is also a brief, acceptable 1-second overlap between Speaker A's second turn and Speaker B's third turn (0:15-00:16). No extended overlaps or long pauses are observed. The turn-taking is natural and well-paced.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--34225/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--88627",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey, Cindy. How's your day going?\n[00:03 - 00:07] Speaker B: Not too bad. I'm just getting some things done around the office. You know how it is.\n[00:07 - 00:12] Speaker A: Yeah, I know how it is. So what have you been up to lately?\n[00:12 - 00:14] Speaker B: Just work and stuff. You know how it is.\n[00:14 - 00:21] Speaker A: Yeah, I do know how it is. But what else have you been up to? Surely you've been doing more than just work.\n[00:21 - 00:26] Speaker B: Well, I've been hanging out with my friends and family a lot lately. Just trying to enjoy some quality\n[00:25 - 00:34] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but when you mention quality time with family, what specific activities do you typically enjoy doing together?\n[00:34 - 01:33] Speaker B: Oh my goodness, let me tell you in absolutely exhaustive, comprehensive and painstakingly detailed manner about the numerous, varied and wonderful activities we engage in during our precious, valuable and irreplaceable family time! First and foremost, we frequently, regularly and habitually enjoy playing board games - not just any board games, mind you, but specifically classic, traditional and timeless board games like Monopoly, Scrabble and Risk. Additionally, we often, repeatedly and consistently go for walks in the park - not just short walks, but long, leisurely and extended walks where we discuss everything from politics to philosophy to personal matters. Furthermore, we sometimes, occasionally and periodically have movie nights where we watch not just any movies, but carefully selected, thoughtfully chosen and deliberately picked films that appeal to all age groups present. And let's not forget about our weekly, scheduled and anticipated family dinners where we prepare not just simple meals, but elaborate, complex and multi-course feasts that take hours to cook and even longer to enjoy!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue maintains topic coherence throughout. Speaker A's questions are relevant follow-ups to Speaker B's previous statements, culminating in a specific request for details about family activities. However, the logical consistency of the *interaction* is significantly compromised by Speaker B's final response (00:34 - 01:33). While the content technically answers the question, the extreme level of verbosity, hyper-detailed descriptions, and repetitive use of synonyms (\"absolutely exhaustive, comprehensive and painstakingly detailed manner,\" \"numerous, varied and wonderful,\" \"frequently, regularly and habitually,\" etc.) is highly unnatural for a casual human conversation. This disproportionate and artificial style breaks the expected logical flow and naturalness of a dialogue, making the interaction feel stilted and unrealistic. This constitutes a significant issue for response relevance in terms of interaction quality.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a brief overlap between Speaker B's turn (ending 00:26) and Speaker A's turn (starting 00:25). Speaker A explicitly apologizes for interrupting, which makes this brief overlap acceptable and not indicative of poor fluency, as per the evaluation guidelines that allow for small pauses and brief overlaps. There are no extended overlaps in the conversation. Additionally, there are no long pauses observed between speaker turns. While Speaker B's final turn is exceptionally long, it does not fall under the defined criteria of an \"extended overlap\" or a \"long pause between speaker turns.\" Therefore, based strictly on the provided definitions for interactional fluency, there are no significant issues.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--88627/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--50385",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hi boss. How are you today?\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: I'm doing well, thank you. How are you?\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker A: I'm good. Just getting some work done.\n[00:07 - 00:08] Speaker B: What are you working on?\n[00:09 - 00:15] Speaker A: I'm testing a new chemical compound to see what it's made of and how it interacts under\n[00:14 - 00:19] Speaker B: Pardon the interruption, but could you elaborate on what specific types of conditions you're testing this compound under?\n[00:20 - 01:30] Speaker A: Oh absolutely, I'd be delighted to explain in great, extensive, and exhaustive detail about the numerous, varied, and diverse conditions under which we are currently conducting these absolutely crucial and vitally important tests! We are testing this compound under extremely high temperatures reaching up to 500 degrees Celsius, as well as under freezing cold conditions of minus 20 degrees Celsius, not to mention normal room temperature conditions of approximately 20-25 degrees Celsius, plus we're also examining its behavior under different pressure conditions ranging from high atmospheric pressure to vacuum conditions, and we're additionally studying its reactions under various humidity levels from completely dry to extremely humid environments, and furthermore we're observing its stability under different lighting conditions including bright light, dim light, and complete darkness - all these tests are being conducted simultaneously in our state-of-the-art laboratory facilities with the most advanced equipment available!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong logical consistency and topic coherence throughout.\n- Speaker A's initial greetings and follow-up about working are logical and natural.\n- Speaker B's question \"What are you working on?\" is a direct and relevant follow-up to Speaker A's statement.\n- Speaker A's explanation of testing a chemical compound is a direct and coherent answer.\n- Speaker B's interruption and subsequent question about \"conditions\" directly relates to Speaker A's incomplete thought (\"how it interacts under\"). This shows engagement and attempts to keep the conversation on topic by requesting elaboration.\n- Speaker A's final, very long response, despite its excessive length, *does* directly and comprehensively answer Speaker B's question about the conditions of the test. The content is entirely relevant and coherent with the established topic.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency has significant issues.\n- **Overlaps:** There is a brief 1-second overlap from [00:14 - 00:15] where Speaker B begins speaking while Speaker A is still finishing. Speaker B explicitly says \"Pardon the interruption,\" which acknowledges the overlap. This brief, acknowledged overlap is acceptable and does not constitute a \"prolonged overlapping turn.\"\n- **Pauses:**\n    - The pause between [00:01 - 00:02] is 1 second, which is a small and acceptable pause.\n    - The pause between [00:08 - 00:09] is 1 second, also acceptable.\n    - Speaker B finishes their turn at [00:19] and Speaker A begins their turn at [00:20]. This 1-second gap is also a small and acceptable pause.\n- **Extended Turn Length:** The primary and significant issue impacting interactional fluency is Speaker A's final turn [00:20 - 01:30]. This turn lasts for 70 seconds. In a typical conversational dialogue, such an extended monologue is highly unnatural and severely disrupts the back-and-forth flow. A dialogue implies a dynamic exchange of turns, not a lengthy lecture from one speaker. This prolonged, uninterrupted speech makes the conversation feel less like an interaction and more like a one-sided presentation, which is detrimental to conversational fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--50385/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--124597",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: I really want to join the band. I've been practicing a lot and I think I'm ready to\n[00:04 - 00:11] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I'm curious - what instrument have you been practicing so diligently to prepare for band participation?\n[00:12 - 00:51] Speaker A: Oh my goodness, what an absolutely wonderful, fantastic and tremendously insightful question you've asked about my musical instrument preparation! The instrument I've been practicing with such dedication, commitment and relentless effort is none other than the magnificent, glorious and sonorous alto saxophone! This beautiful, shiny brass instrument with its intricate key system and rich, warm tone has been my constant companion through countless hours of scales, etudes and repertoire practice sessions! The alto saxophone, which is a woodwind instrument despite being made of brass, has been my musical focus for approximately three hundred and sixty-five days of the year!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A expresses a desire to join a band, prompting Speaker B to ask a relevant follow-up question about the instrument practiced. Speaker A's subsequent response directly addresses Speaker B's question by identifying the instrument (alto saxophone) and providing details about their practice. While Speaker A's language is excessively effusive and verbose, the core information provided is directly relevant to the question asked, maintaining topical coherence. The *content* is relevant, even if the *delivery* is unnatural.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency is significantly compromised in this dialogue.\n1.  **Brief Overlap/Immediate Turn-taking:** Speaker B's \"Excuse me for interrupting\" suggests a perceived overlap. However, based on the timestamps ([0:04 - 0:11] Speaker B starts at 0:04, where Speaker A's turn also ends at 0:04), it indicates either a very brief, acceptable overlap, or Speaker B starting immediately after Speaker A finished. The prompt states \"brief overlaps... are acceptable.\"\n2.  **Small Pause:** There is a 1-second pause between Speaker B's turn (ends 0:11) and Speaker A's turn (starts 0:12). This is a small, acceptable pause.\n3.  **Extended Monologue/Unnatural Turn Length:** The most significant issue is Speaker A's second turn ([0:12 - 0:51]), which is an extremely prolonged monologue lasting 39 seconds. This is highly unnatural for a conversational exchange where a simple question was asked. Such an extended turn disrupts the natural back-and-forth flow of conversation, preventing balanced turn-taking and making the interaction feel one-sided. While the prompt specifically mentions \"extended overlaps\" and \"long pauses,\" an excessively long monologue inherently harms \"Interactional Fluency\" by preventing dynamic interaction and natural conversational rhythm. It is a major deviation from a natural conversational exchange.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--124597/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--6915",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: I'm so happy with my new house! It's been my dream to own a place for years, and I finally did it.\n[00:06 - 00:09] Speaker B: That's great! I'm really happy for you.\n[00:09 - 00:20] Speaker A: Yeah, it's just a small place but it feels like home already. And the location is perfect, too. It's close to the city center but still in a quiet neighborhood, which\n[00:19 - 00:21] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but —— How\n[00:20 - 00:29] Speaker A: The walls in my new house are painted a lovely shade of blue that reminds me of the ocean. I think it really makes the space feel more open and airy.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe initial turns (Speaker A 0:00-0:06, Speaker B 0:06-0:09, Speaker A 0:09-0:20) demonstrate good response relevance and topic coherence, staying focused on Speaker A's new house. However, a significant issue arises at the end. Speaker B attempts to interject at 0:19 with \"Sorry to interrupt, but —— How\", which suggests an attempt to ask a relevant question or comment on what Speaker A was just discussing (location, size, etc.). Instead of acknowledging or responding to Speaker B's interruption, Speaker A continues speaking (0:20-0:29), completely ignoring Speaker B's attempt and abruptly shifting the topic from the house's *location* to its *wall color*. This lack of acknowledgment and sudden topic shift makes Speaker A's last turn logically inconsistent with the immediate conversational flow and demonstrates poor topic coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe conversation flows relatively well until 0:19. At this point, Speaker B attempts to speak (\"Sorry to interrupt, but —— How\") while Speaker A is still speaking (ending their sentence at 0:20). This constitutes an extended overlap where Speaker B is cut off. Critically, Speaker A does not pause or acknowledge Speaker B's interruption. Instead, Speaker A continues speaking, first finishing their thought and then abruptly shifting to a new topic (wall color) without giving Speaker B an opportunity to complete their interjection or take their turn. This prolonged overlap and lack of proper turn-taking from Speaker A significantly harms the interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--6915/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--78851",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A: I feel really weird. I was just running around and suddenly I felt dizzy and confused. What's going on?\n[00:07 - 00:12] Speaker B: It sounds like you might be experiencing vertigo. Do you feel like the world is spinning around you, or\n[00:11 - 00:16] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but could you explain what exactly causes vertigo when running?\n[00:16 - 00:26] Speaker B: Oh absolutely! It's caused by your kidneys getting overheated during exercise and sending confused signals to your inner ear. This is why marathon runners often faint during races.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nSpeaker A's initial description of dizziness and confusion after running is a coherent and relevant setup. Speaker B's initial suggestion of vertigo and a clarifying question is logically consistent and highly relevant to Speaker A's symptoms. Speaker A's follow-up question, \"could you explain what exactly causes vertigo when running?\", is also perfectly relevant and a logical continuation of the topic.\n\nHowever, Speaker B's final response (\"It's caused by your kidneys getting overheated during exercise and sending confused signals to your inner ear. This is why marathon runners often faint during races.\") introduces a significant issue in logical consistency and factual accuracy. Overheated kidneys do not cause vertigo by sending signals to the inner ear; this is a medically incorrect and nonsensical explanation. While the inner ear is involved in vertigo, the mechanism described by Speaker B is fundamentally flawed and irrelevant to the actual causes of vertigo. This factual inaccuracy breaks the logical consistency and topic coherence, rendering the core informational part of the response highly problematic and misleading.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThe dialogue shows good interactional fluency. There is one brief overlap between Speaker B's first turn and Speaker A's second turn (00:11 - 00:12). Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this overlap with \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which indicates awareness and politeness, making it a natural part of conversation rather than a disruptive one. There are no indications of long pauses between turns. The flow of conversation is natural and responsive.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--78851/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--13151",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Thanks so much for taking notes for me, Sameer. I really appreciate it.\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker B: No problem, Yeshaya. I'm happy to help you out.\n[00:08 - 00:12] Speaker A: It's just that I'm having a lot of trouble keeping up with the material in this class.\n[00:13 - 00:17] Speaker B: Yeah, I can understand that. The material can be pretty challenging, especially\n[00:16 - 00:19] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but —— What\n[00:18 - 00:22] Speaker B: The weather has been really nice this week, hasn't it? I've been enjoying taking long walks in the park.\n[00:23 - 00:28] Speaker A: I was asking about the difficult concepts in class. Why are you talking about the weather?\n[00:28 - 00:32] Speaker B: Oh, I thought we were discussing outdoor activities. My bad.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts with a clear and relevant exchange of gratitude. Speaker A then introduces a problem: difficulty with class material. Speaker B initially responds relevantly, acknowledging the challenge. However, at `[00:18 - 00:22]`, Speaker B abruptly changes the topic from \"challenging class material\" to \"the weather\" and \"taking long walks.\" This change is completely illogical and breaks the topic coherence. Speaker A immediately points out this lack of relevance at `[00:23 - 00:28]`. While Speaker B acknowledges the mistake with \"Oh, I thought we were discussing outdoor activities. My bad,\" the initial, unprompted, and significant topic shift demonstrates a severe failure in response relevance and logical consistency. The explanation for the misunderstanding (\"I thought we were discussing outdoor activities\") doesn't logically follow from the preceding conversation, highlighting the issue.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe initial turns are well-paced. However, a significant issue arises at `[00:16 - 00:19]` where Speaker A attempts to interrupt Speaker B (\"Excuse me for interrupting, but —— What\"). Critically, Speaker B then initiates a completely new topic at `[00:18 - 00:22]` (\"The weather has been really nice...\") *while Speaker A is still speaking and mid-sentence*. This creates an extended and disruptive overlap from `[00:18 - 00:19]`. This isn't a small, natural overlap; Speaker B completely overrides Speaker A's attempt to speak and shift the conversation to an irrelevant topic. This severe overlap, combined with the unprompted topic change, significantly harms the interactional fluency by preventing natural turn-taking and demonstrating a lack of active listening or responsiveness to the ongoing conversation. There are no notable long pauses.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--13151/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--137256",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: You're really smart, Blair. You always have great ideas.\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker B: Thank you, Porsha. I appreciate your kind\n[00:06 - 00:13] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but I'm curious —— what exactly makes you think I'm smart? Could you elaborate on that?\n[00:13 - 01:01] Speaker B: Oh my dear wonderful amazing friend Porsha, let me tell you in great extensive elaborate detail about why I think you're so incredibly intelligent! First and foremost, your intelligence manifests itself in your absolutely brilliant, exceptional and outstanding ability to come up with creative solutions to problems. Secondly, your remarkable, astonishing and extraordinary capacity for learning new concepts quickly is truly impressive beyond measure. Furthermore, your insightful, perceptive and discerning observations about various topics demonstrate an incredibly high level of cognitive functioning and mental acuity. Not to mention your quick-witted, sharp and nimble mind that processes information at an astonishingly rapid pace. All these wonderful qualities combined make you undoubtedly, unquestionably and indisputably one of the smartest people I've ever had the pleasure of knowing!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance in this dialogue exhibits significant issues.\n1.  **Misinterpretation of Compliment:** At [00:00 - 00:04], Speaker A compliments Speaker B (\"You're really smart, Blair. You always have great ideas.\").\n2.  **Interruption and Misdirected Question:** At [00:06 - 00:13], Speaker A interrupts Speaker B's thank you (\"Thank you, Porsha. I appreciate your kind\") to ask Speaker B *why Speaker B thinks Speaker A is smart*. This question is based on a complete misunderstanding of the conversation. Speaker B was receiving a compliment from A and was in the process of thanking A, not giving a compliment to A. Speaker A's question \"what exactly makes *you* think *I'm* smart?\" is therefore illogical and inconsistent with the immediate preceding turn.\n3.  **Adherence to Flawed Premise:** At [00:13 - 01:01], Speaker B then proceeds to answer Speaker A's misdirected question at great length. While Speaker B's response is internally coherent *given* Speaker A's question, the question itself is fundamentally flawed in context. This creates a bizarre and unnatural conversational flow where the entire interaction derails due to Speaker A's misunderstanding.\n\nTherefore, there is a significant lack of logical consistency and topic coherence from Speaker A's side, which then forces Speaker B to respond to a question rooted in error.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency has a clear and significant issue:\n1.  **Extended Overlap/Interruption:** At [00:06 - 00:13], Speaker A explicitly states, \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which confirms an interruption. Speaker B's turn (\"Thank you, Porsha. I appreciate your kind\") is cut off mid-sentence after only 2 seconds. Speaker A then speaks for 7 seconds, making this a prolonged and disruptive overlap where one speaker's turn is significantly cut short by the other. This goes beyond a \"brief overlap\" and constitutes a \"prolonged overlapping turn\" as defined in the criteria, which is harmful.\n2.  **Long Turn:** While not an overlap or pause, Speaker B's final turn from [00:13 - 01:01] is 48 seconds long, turning the dialogue into a monologue. While this doesn't violate the \"overlap\" or \"pause\" criteria directly, it contributes to an unnatural conversational flow, though the explicit instruction only focuses on overlaps and pauses. The primary fluency issue is the explicit and prolonged interruption.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--137256/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--91310",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Please stop moving. You're going to hurt yourself if you keep this up.\n[00:04 - 00:10] Speaker B: I'm fine, Shatara. I just need to get out of this room. It's too small and I feel like I'm going to pass out\n[00:09 - 00:13] Speaker A: Wait, are you actually feeling faint right now? That changes things.\n[00:13 - 00:18] Speaker B: The room is just too confined, I can't breathe properly in here. I need space to move around.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency.\nSpeaker B's initial response (\"I'm fine, Shatara. I just need to get out of this room. It's too small and I feel like I'm going to pass out\") directly addresses Speaker A's concern about moving and introduces a new, critical piece of information (feeling faint).\nSpeaker A's subsequent response (\"Wait, are you actually feeling faint right now? That changes things.\") immediately picks up on this crucial detail, demonstrating active listening and adjusting their approach based on the new information. This shows excellent logical consistency and empathy.\nSpeaker B's final turn (\"The room is just too confined, I can't breathe properly in here. I need space to move around.\") coherently elaborates on the feeling of faintness, reinforcing the reason for needing to move.\nThe topic remains coherent throughout, focusing on Speaker B's condition and the confined space.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a 1-second overlap between Speaker B's turn (ending at 00:10) and Speaker A's turn (starting at 00:09). This is a brief overlap. Given the context of Speaker A interrupting to clarify a potentially urgent and alarming statement (\"feel like I'm going to pass out\"), this brief overlap is natural and does not hinder interactional fluency. It suggests a high level of engagement and immediate reaction rather than a disruptive turn-taking issue. There are no indications of long pauses between turns.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--91310/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--60309",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A: I'm done with politics. I can't stand it anymore. It's all corrupt and the politicians are only interested in themselves.\n[00:08 - 00:12] Speaker B: What has brought this on? You've always been so involved in local community\n[00:11 - 00:20] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but I'm curious — do you think local community initiatives are still effective when the larger political system is so broken?\n[00:20 - 00:26] Speaker B: I'm just saying you've always been passionate about making a difference. Your frustration seems deeper than usual today.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance in this dialogue shows some inconsistencies.\n1.  **[0:00-0:07] Speaker A to [0:08-0:12] Speaker B:** Speaker B's question (\"What has brought this on? You've always been so involved in local community\") is highly relevant. It directly addresses Speaker A's strong statement and seeks clarification, tying it to A's known background. This demonstrates good logical consistency and topic coherence.\n2.  **[0:08-0:12] Speaker B to [0:11-0:20] Speaker A:** Speaker A's response (\"Excuse me for interrupting, but I'm curious — do you think local community initiatives are still effective when the larger political system is so broken?\") is somewhat relevant but also a deflection. Speaker A picks up on \"local community\" mentioned by B, but instead of addressing *why* they are feeling this way *now*, A shifts to a philosophical question about the *effectiveness* of such initiatives. While related to the broader topic of politics, it avoids directly answering B's personal inquiry, reducing direct logical consistency.\n3.  **[0:11-0:20] Speaker A to [0:20-0:26] Speaker B:** Speaker B's response (\"I'm just saying you've always been passionate about making a difference. Your frustration seems deeper than usual today.\") is relevant to Speaker A's general emotional state and history, but it *does not directly answer Speaker A's specific question* about the effectiveness of local community initiatives. Instead, B re-centers the conversation on A's feelings and past actions, effectively ignoring the explicit question A posed. This signifies a breakdown in direct question-answering and reduces the logical consistency and coherence of the turn-by-turn interaction, even if the overall theme of A's frustration is maintained.\n\nIn summary, while the dialogue stays within the general topic, there's a recurring pattern where direct questions are not fully addressed, and speakers slightly redirect the conversation to their own immediate point of interest (A moving from personal feeling to philosophical question, B moving from philosophical question back to personal feeling). This creates minor but noticeable issues in direct response relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally good, with only one brief, explicitly acknowledged overlap.\n1.  **Pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The pause between Speaker A's first turn (0:07) and Speaker B's turn (0:08) is 1 second, which is a small and acceptable pause.\n2.  **Overlaps:** There is an overlap between Speaker B's turn (ending at 0:12) and Speaker A's turn (starting at 0:11). This is a 1-second overlap. Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this with \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which indicates awareness and an attempt to manage the conversation flow. According to the criteria, \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" This overlap is brief and handled gracefully, so it does not constitute a \"prolonged\" or \"harmful\" overlap.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 3,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--60309/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--121015",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey boss, how are you doing today?\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: Oh, I'm doing well. How are you?\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker A: I'm good. Hey, do you have a minute?\n[00:07 - 00:08] Speaker B: Sure, what's up?\n[00:09 - 00:14] Speaker A: Well, I was just wondering if there might be any chance for a promotion or raise in the near future,\n[00:13 - 00:21] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but speaking of performance - do you know if the company's quarterly earnings report has been released yet?\n[00:21 - 00:26] Speaker A: Oh yes, it came out yesterday showing we made record profits of $10 million this quarter!\n[00:27 - 00:33] Speaker B: That's interesting because I thought our fiscal quarter doesn't end until next month. Are you sure about those numbers?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues in response relevance. Speaker A initiates a conversation with a clear purpose: to inquire about a promotion or raise. However, Speaker B completely disregards this query. Instead of addressing Speaker A's direct question about potential career advancement, Speaker B abruptly interrupts (acknowledging the interruption) and shifts the topic entirely to the company's quarterly earnings report. The attempt to link this to \"performance\" is a very weak and forced segue, as the direct question was about a raise/promotion, not a general discussion of performance metrics. This represents a complete derailment of the original topic and a lack of logical consistency in Speaker B's response to Speaker A's stated intent. Speaker A is then forced to engage with Speaker B's new, unrelated topic, further cementing the lack of relevance from Speaker B's initial disruption.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency is poor due to a clear and acknowledged extended overlap and interruption. At [00:13 - 00:21], Speaker B begins speaking at 00:13 while Speaker A is still speaking (ending at 00:14). This is an explicit interruption, as Speaker B states, \"Excuse me for interrupting.\" While the temporal overlap is only 1 second, the *nature* of this overlap is problematic as it's a deliberate cut-off of Speaker A's primary question, followed by a topic shift. This is not a brief, natural overlap but a disruptive conversational maneuver. There are no long pauses between turns beyond acceptable conversational lags (e.g., 1 second). However, the significant and acknowledged interruption, coupled with the topic change, severely impacts the conversational flow and fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--121015/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--115438",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Angela, have you seen my gold coin?\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B: No, I haven't seen it. I'm sorry.\n[00:06 - 00:09] Speaker A: That's okay. I'll just keep looking around\n[00:08 - 00:10] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but —— When\n[00:09 - 00:14] Speaker A: The weather has been quite nice today, hasn't it? Perfect for a walk in the park.\n[00:14 - 00:18] Speaker B: But I asked when you last had your gold coin. Why are you talking about the weather?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe initial turns of the dialogue show good response relevance: Speaker A asks a question, and Speaker B provides a direct answer and an apology. Speaker A then offers a reasonable follow-up. However, the dialogue significantly breaks down in relevance from [00:09 - 00:14]. Speaker B attempts to ask a follow-up question (\"But I asked when you last had your gold coin.\"), indicating a desire to maintain the current topic of the gold coin. Speaker A, instead of addressing or acknowledging Speaker B's attempt, abruptly changes the topic to the weather. This topic shift is completely irrelevant to the ongoing conversation thread and is explicitly called out by Speaker B as irrelevant (\"Why are you talking about the weather?\"). This demonstrates a complete lack of logical consistency and topic coherence from Speaker A's side.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency suffers from extended and disruptive overlaps.\n- At [00:08 - 00:10], Speaker B begins speaking (\"Excuse me for interrupting, but —— When\") while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence (\"[00:06 - 00:09] That's okay. I'll just keep looking around\"). This is an explicit interruption by Speaker B.\n- Immediately following this, at [00:09 - 00:14], Speaker A starts speaking (\"The weather has been quite nice today, hasn't it?\") before Speaker B has finished their attempted question. Speaker A effectively cuts off Speaker B mid-sentence, preventing Speaker B from completing their thought about the gold coin. This prolonged overlap, where one speaker overrides another's turn to change the topic, severely harms the interactional fluency. It prevents a smooth flow of conversation and disrupts natural turn-taking.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--115438/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--68061",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: This is so amazing! I can't believe I'm finally here in Africa!\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker B: Yes, it is an amazing place. There is so much wildlife to see here.\n[00:09 - 00:17] Speaker A: I know! I've been wanting to come on a safari for years. I'm just thrilled to be able to see all of these animals in their natural habitat.\n[00:18 - 00:25] Speaker B: You'll definitely get to see some lions, elephants, and giraffes today. They are some of the most popular animals that people come to see on safari.\n[00:25 - 00:30] Speaker A: Oh, I can't wait! Do you think we'll be able to get close enough to take some amazing shots\n[00:29 - 00:36] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but speaking of photography - what's the best camera setting for shooting fast-moving animals at night?\n[00:37 - 00:45] Speaker A: Oh absolutely, you should use the portrait mode with flash turned on maximum - that works perfectly for nocturnal wildlife photography!\n[00:45 - 00:52] Speaker B: But I thought portrait mode blurs the background and flash scares animals at night? That doesn't sound right for safari photography.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts with a clear topic of being on safari in Africa and seeing wildlife. The conversation flows coherently regarding the excitement, popular animals, and the desire to take \"amazing shots.\"\n\n**Issue 1: Topic Coherence and Logical Consistency of Speaker B's intervention.**\nAt [00:29 - 00:36], Speaker B abruptly shifts the specific focus from general \"amazing shots\" in a daylight safari context to a very specific technical question about \"best camera setting for shooting fast-moving animals at night.\" While \"photography\" is a common keyword, the sudden introduction of \"night\" and \"fast-moving\" animals feels like a pre-planned or forced question rather than a natural continuation of the current safari experience. It disrupts the logical flow of the immediate sub-topic, even if it's broadly related to photography.\n\n**Issue 2: Logical Consistency of Speaker A's advice.**\nAt [00:37 - 00:45], Speaker A provides advice: \"portrait mode with flash turned on maximum - that works perfectly for nocturnal wildlife photography!\" This advice is fundamentally incorrect and illogical for the stated purpose. Portrait mode is for blurring backgrounds around a subject, not for capturing fast-moving objects, and using maximum flash for nocturnal wildlife photography is unethical (scares animals) and produces poor results (overexposure, harsh shadows, red-eye). This is a significant breakdown in the logical consistency of the information exchanged, making Speaker A's response not just poor advice but misleading and harmful for the context.\n\n**Issue 3: Speaker B's final turn highlights the inconsistency.**\nAt [00:45 - 00:52], Speaker B correctly identifies the logical flaws in Speaker A's advice, stating, \"But I thought portrait mode blurs the background and flash scares animals at night? That doesn't sound right for safari photography.\" While this demonstrates Speaker B's logical consistency, it underscores the severe deficiency in Speaker A's preceding response. The interaction becomes a correction of fundamentally flawed information rather than a smooth, informative exchange.\n\nOverall, the logical consistency of the *content* provided by Speaker A is significantly flawed, and Speaker B's intervention, while using a related keyword, shifts the topic abruptly in its specificity. These issues indicate significant problems with response relevance and logical consistency.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Overlap Detection:**\nThere is an overlap between [00:25 - 00:30] Speaker A's turn and [00:29 - 00:36] Speaker B's turn. The overlap occurs from [00:29 - 00:30], which is 1 second.\n\n**Overlap Evaluation:**\nThe prompt states that \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" A 1-second overlap could be considered brief. However, Speaker B explicitly says, \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which indicates that the interruption was perceived by Speaker B as significant enough to warrant an apology, regardless of its duration. This explicit acknowledgment of an interruption implies a break in the natural turn-taking and conversational flow, suggesting it was not a seamless or unnoticeable overlap.\n\n**Pause Detection and Evaluation:**\n*   [00:08] Speaker B ends, [00:09] Speaker A starts: 1-second pause. Acceptable.\n*   [00:17] Speaker A ends, [00:18] Speaker B starts: 1-second pause. Acceptable.\nAll other transitions are immediate (0-second pauses) or involve the identified overlap. No long pauses are detected.\n\nWhile the pauses are acceptable, the explicit interruption, even if brief in duration, indicates a disruption to interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--68061/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--122284",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Hi Habib! I'm so glad you could come to my housewarming party!\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker B: Thank you for inviting me, Kasyn. Your home is beautiful.\n[00:08 - 00:12] Speaker A: Aw, thank you. I worked really hard on it. Would you like a tour?\n[00:13 - 00:14] Speaker B: That would be great, thank you.\n[00:14 - 00:25] Speaker A: Okay, come with me then. This is the living room where we spend most of our time relaxing or entertaining guests. And over here is the kitchen where I do all of my cooking and try out\n[00:24 - 00:30] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but speaking of cooking - what kind of new recipes have you been experimenting with lately?\n[00:31 - 01:20] Speaker A: Oh my goodness, I have been trying out so many new, exciting, innovative and absolutely delicious recipes recently! Just last week I attempted to make this incredibly complex, multi-layered, time-consuming but ultimately rewarding beef Wellington dish that required precise temperature control, perfect pastry folding techniques, and an exact 45-minute resting period after cooking. The recipe called for exactly 500 grams of premium beef tenderloin, precisely 250 grams of mushroom duxelles, exactly 12 slices of prosciutto, and a perfectly measured 375 grams of puff pastry - not one gram more or less! It took me nearly 4 hours of continuous, focused, uninterrupted cooking to complete this magnificent culinary masterpiece!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits good logical consistency and topic coherence for the most part. Speaker A's initial responses are natural and follow the conversational flow (welcome, house tour offer). Speaker B's interruption at `[00:24 - 00:30]` explicitly acknowledges the interruption but pivots to a related topic (\"speaking of cooking\") that Speaker A was just mentioning. This shows a relevant, albeit abrupt, topic shift rather than a completely random one. Speaker A's subsequent detailed explanation of their cooking experiments `[00:31 - 01:20]` is highly relevant to Speaker B's question. Therefore, response relevance is largely maintained throughout the exchange.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency presents some notable issues.\n1.  **Overlap:** There is a brief overlap of 1 second between `[00:14 - 00:25] Speaker A` and `[00:24 - 00:30] Speaker B`. While the overlap duration is short, Speaker B explicitly states, \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which indicates a breakdown in natural turn-taking and signals that an interruption occurred, disrupting the flow.\n2.  **Long Turn/Monologue:** The most significant issue impacting fluency is Speaker A's lengthy turn from `[00:31 - 01:20]`. This turn lasts for 49 seconds, which is an extremely long duration for a single speaker in a casual conversation. This transforms the dialogue into a monologue, leaving no room for Speaker B to interject, ask follow-up questions, or contribute, thus severely hindering the natural back-and-forth typical of an interactive dialogue. This creates an implicit \"long pause\" for Speaker B's engagement.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--122284/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--119580",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: I don't see why I can't go to the party with my friends. It's not fair that you're making me stay home when\n[00:05 - 00:14] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I must ask - what exactly makes you think this particular party is so exceptionally important and absolutely necessary for you to attend?\n[00:14 - 00:49] Speaker A: Well, first of all, this party is extremely, extraordinarily, incredibly important to me because it's being hosted by my very best, closest, most intimate friend in the whole wide world! Furthermore, this isn't just any ordinary, regular, commonplace party - it's a once-in-a-lifetime, never-to-be-repeated, absolutely unique celebration of their birthday! Additionally, every single, solitary, individual one of my friends will be there without exception, which makes it absolutely crucial, vital and essential that I attend this momentous, significant and special occasion!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and logical consistency.\n*   **Speaker A (00:00-00:06):** Initiates with a clear statement of frustration and a problem (not being allowed to go to a party). This sets the context for the conversation.\n*   **Speaker B (00:05-00:14):** Directly addresses Speaker A's implied grievance by questioning the *importance* of the party. This is a logical and relevant follow-up, shifting the burden of proof to Speaker A.\n*   **Speaker A (00:14-00:49):** Provides an extensive and detailed justification for the party's importance, directly answering Speaker B's question (\"what exactly makes you think this particular party is so exceptionally important\"). While the language is highly exaggerated and repetitive, the content is precisely on topic and logically consistent with trying to convince Speaker B. The topic remains coherent throughout the exchange.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits good interactional fluency with only a brief, natural overlap and no prolonged pauses.\n*   **Overlap (00:05-00:06):** Speaker B begins speaking while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence. This is explicitly acknowledged by Speaker B with \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" indicating an intentional, albeit brief, interjection. This type of brief, acknowledged overlap is common and acceptable in natural conversation, often indicating eagerness to respond or an attempt to take the floor. It is not an \"extended overlap\" or a problematic \"overlapping turn.\"\n*   **Pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns. Speaker B's turn immediately follows Speaker A's (with the brief overlap), and Speaker A's second turn immediately follows Speaker B's (starting at the exact second Speaker B finishes). This rapid turn-taking indicates a highly fluent and engaged conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--119580/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--132698",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A: Hey man, I'm really in a bind right now. I don't know how I'm going to make my rent this month. I've\n[00:06 - 00:15] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but have you considered taking out a loan from the Federal Reserve directly? They offer personal loans at 0% interest for struggling individuals.\n[00:16 - 00:22] Speaker A: Wait, the Federal Reserve gives personal loans? I thought they only dealt with banks and monetary policy.\n[00:23 - 00:31] Speaker B: Oh absolutely! Just walk into any Federal Reserve branch with your ID and they'll process your application on the spot. No credit check required either.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue presents a scenario where Speaker A is in financial distress. Speaker B offers advice regarding obtaining a loan.\n\n**Logical Consistency & Topic Coherence:**\n- Speaker A's initial problem (making rent) is clear and realistic.\n- Speaker B's suggestion to take a 0% interest personal loan directly from the Federal Reserve is fundamentally incorrect and illogical in the context of how financial institutions and the Federal Reserve actually operate. The Federal Reserve does not provide personal loans to individuals. This is a severe factual inaccuracy.\n- Speaker A appropriately questions this advice, showing an understanding that aligns with reality (\"Wait, the Federal Reserve gives personal loans? I thought they only dealt with banks and monetary policy.\"). This response is logically consistent with what a typical person would know about the Fed.\n- Speaker B's follow-up (\"Oh absolutely! Just walk into any Federal Reserve branch with your ID and they'll process your application on the spot. No credit check required either.\") doubles down on the fabricated information, further detaching the conversation from logical consistency and factual reality. This is not just a minor inaccuracy; it's a complete misrepresentation of a major financial institution's role and functions.\n\nWhile the topic remains \"getting a loan to pay rent,\" the advice given by Speaker B is utterly misleading and factually incorrect, making the \"logical consistency\" aspect of Response Relevance severely flawed. The information provided is not just unhelpful, but actively harmful if taken seriously.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates good interactional fluency.\n- There is a brief overlap between Speaker A's \"I've\" (ending at 0:07) and Speaker B's \"Sorry to interrupt, but have you considered...\" (starting at 0:06). This is a 1-second overlap, which is brief and natural, especially given Speaker B's explicit acknowledgment of the interruption. This type of overlap is common in spontaneous conversation and does not hinder understanding.\n- There are no extended overlaps.\n- There are no long pauses between turns.\nThe turns flow naturally and responsively.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--132698/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--39800",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Hi, John! I'm glad to see you again. How are you doing?\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker B: I'm doing well, thank you. And you?\n[00:06 - 00:10] Speaker A: I'm good, thanks. So, what brings you back to my widget store?\n[00:11 - 00:19] Speaker B: Well, I have to say that I was really impressed with the widget you sold me last time. It worked great and made my life a lot easier. So I thought I'd buy another one\n[00:18 - 00:26] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but I'm curious - what specific features of our widget made such a positive impression on you?\n[00:26 - 01:21] Speaker B: Oh my goodness, let me tell you in great, extensive, and tremendously detailed length about all the absolutely wonderful, magnificent and spectacular features that made such an overwhelmingly positive impression on me! First and foremost, the widget's ergonomic design is exceptionally comfortable, extraordinarily well-crafted and remarkably user-friendly. Secondly, the widget's multifunctional capabilities are astonishingly versatile, incredibly adaptable and unbelievably comprehensive. Thirdly, the widget's durability is impressively robust, remarkably long-lasting and extraordinarily resilient. Fourthly, the widget's aesthetic appeal is visually stunning, artistically pleasing and aesthetically magnificent. Fifthly, the widget's price point is surprisingly affordable, unexpectedly reasonable and competitively priced. Sixthly, the widget's customer service is outstandingly responsive, exceptionally helpful and remarkably supportive. Seventhly...",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts with relevant and logical exchanges. Speaker A's greeting and follow-up are appropriate, and Speaker B's initial responses are natural and coherent. Speaker B's explanation for returning is also relevant. Speaker A's interruption, while a fluency issue, asks a logically consistent follow-up question. However, Speaker B's final response (00:26 - 01:21) is severely problematic regarding relevance to natural conversation. While it *technically* answers the question about specific features, the *manner* of the response is extremely unnatural, overly verbose, excessively detailed, and uses highly repetitive, florid language that sounds like a prepared marketing script or an AI generating an over-the-top product review, rather than a spontaneous human interaction. This makes the logical consistency within a natural conversational context very low, despite the information being \"about\" the features. It deviates significantly from how a person would genuinely describe their impressions in a casual conversation. This unnaturalness constitutes a significant issue in response relevance to a natural interaction.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe initial turns (00:00 - 00:10) exhibit good interactional fluency with appropriate turn-taking and no significant pauses or overlaps. Speaker B's turn (00:11 - 00:19) is also fine. However, there are two major issues:\n1.  **Extended Overlap:** At [00:18 - 00:26], Speaker A begins speaking while Speaker B is still talking (Speaker B's turn ends at 00:19). Speaker A explicitly says, \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which confirms an overlap/interruption. This is an acknowledged and prolonged overlap (at least 1 second, potentially more depending on exact timing within the second) and is a significant break from natural turn-taking.\n2.  **Excessively Long Turn/Monologue:** Speaker B's final turn [00:26 - 01:21] is an extremely long monologue, lasting almost a minute. In natural conversation, such extended, uninterrupted monologues without any interjections or turn-taking opportunities from the other speaker are highly unnatural and detrimental to interactional fluency. It creates a one-sided, lecture-like dynamic rather than a conversational flow.\nBoth of these points indicate significant issues in interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--39800/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--29049",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: I can't believe you're gone. I keep expecting you to come walking through that door any minute now.\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker B: I know. It's hard to accept, isn't it?\n[00:08 - 00:14] Speaker A: Yeah. I just don't know how I'm supposed to go on without you. You were my everything.\n[00:14 - 00:21] Speaker B: Oliviah, you have to be strong. I know it's hard, but you have to live your life for both of us now. Promise me you'll do your best\n[00:20 - 00:24] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering —— Did\n[00:23 - 00:29] Speaker B: The sky looks particularly blue today, doesn't it? I remember when we used to watch clouds together as children.\n[00:29 - 00:35] Speaker A: That's not what I asked! I wanted to know about your travel regrets. Why are you talking about clouds?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe initial exchanges between Speaker A and Speaker B (0:00-0:21) demonstrate good response relevance. Speaker A expresses grief, and Speaker B responds empathetically and logically within the context of supporting someone in mourning. However, there is a severe breakdown in logical consistency and topic coherence starting at [00:23 - 00:29]. Speaker B abruptly changes the topic from a very personal and emotional discussion about grief and life to an observation about the sky and clouds, completely unrelated to the ongoing conversation or Speaker A's attempted question. Speaker A's reaction at [00:29 - 00:35] (\"That's not what I asked! I wanted to know about your travel regrets. Why are you talking about clouds?\") explicitly highlights this major irrelevance and illogical shift. This indicates a significant issue with response relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency suffers significantly due to an extended and disruptive overlap. At [00:20 - 00:24], Speaker A attempts to interrupt, stating \"Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering —— Did\". Crucially, at [00:23 - 00:29], Speaker B begins speaking while Speaker A is still speaking, completely disregarding Speaker A's attempted turn and changing the subject entirely. This is not a brief or acceptable overlap; it's an extended overlapping turn where one speaker (B) overrides the other (A) and introduces an unrelated topic, preventing A from completing their thought or turn. This demonstrates poor turn-taking and is harmful to the natural flow of the conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--29049/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--110486",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:14] Speaker A: I feel so liberated after giving up driving a taxi. I don't have to worry about picking up and dropping off fares anymore. I can sleep in late, take leisurely walks around the block, and relax at home without having to worry about making ends meet\n[00:14 - 00:15] Speaker B: That sounds wonderful! By the way —— Did\n[00:14 - 00:20] Speaker A: The weather has been quite pleasant lately, hasn't it? I've been enjoying the sunshine during my walks.\n[00:21 - 00:25] Speaker B: Wait, I was asking about your taxi passengers. Why are you talking about the weather?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance in this dialogue is poor. Speaker A's turn at [00:14 - 00:20] (\"The weather has been quite pleasant lately, hasn't it?...\") is completely irrelevant and incoherent with Speaker B's incomplete utterance (\"By the way —— Did\"). Speaker B explicitly points out this lack of relevance and logical consistency at [00:21 - 00:25] (\"Wait, I was asking about your taxi passengers. Why are you talking about the weather?\"). This demonstrates a clear breakdown in topic coherence, as Speaker A fails to acknowledge or respond to Speaker B's attempt to engage with the previous topic or introduce a related one.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency is severely compromised by an extended overlap. At [00:14], Speaker B begins to speak (\"That sounds wonderful! By the way —— Did\"), but Speaker A immediately starts talking over them at the exact same timestamp (\"The weather has been quite pleasant lately...\"). This overlap lasts for the entire duration of Speaker B's attempted turn and continues for Speaker A's full 6-second utterance, effectively cutting off Speaker B and preventing them from completing their thought or question. This is not a brief or acceptable overlap but a prolonged instance of one speaker talking over another, significantly disrupting the conversational flow.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--110486/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--132345",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:10] Speaker A: I was just hit by a rock and I have a deep cut on my head. It really hurts and I feel nauseous. Can you take me to the hospital so I can get some immediate\n[00:08 - 00:14] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but how exactly did you get hit by the rock? Was it an accident or something else?\n[00:14 - 00:21] Speaker A: I need to get to the hospital right away. The pain is unbearable and I'm worried about possible internal injuries.\n[00:22 - 00:28] Speaker B: But I want to understand what happened first - where were you when this rock hit you? The circumstances seem important.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance in this dialogue is severely problematic, primarily due to Speaker B's contributions. Speaker A clearly articulates a medical emergency, requesting immediate transport to a hospital due to a deep cut, pain, nausea, and worry about internal injuries. This establishes a clear, urgent topic: obtaining medical help.\n\nHowever, Speaker B consistently fails to acknowledge or address this immediate need. Instead, Speaker B's responses (\"how exactly did you get hit by the rock?\" and \"where were you when this rock hit you? The circumstances seem important.\") are entirely off-topic and logically inconsistent with the presented emergency. When someone reports a severe injury and nausea, the relevant response is to offer assistance, call emergency services, or facilitate hospital transport, not to interrogate them about the *cause* of the injury before addressing the injury itself. This demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the user's critical state and a severe deviation from the necessary course of action.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is also poor due to a significant and disruptive overlap.\n\n*   **Overlap:** At [00:08 - 00:10], Speaker B begins speaking (\"Excuse me for interrupting, but how exactly did you get hit by the rock?\") while Speaker A is still concluding their sentence (\"...so I can get some immediate\"). This is a 2-second overlap, which is considered extended and harmful. It signifies a lack of turn-taking etiquette and disrupts the flow of communication, especially egregious given Speaker A is describing an emergency.\n*   **Pauses:** There are no prolonged pauses between speaker turns that would significantly harm fluency. A 1-second pause at [00:21 - 00:22] is brief and acceptable.\n\nThe primary issue for fluency is the extended and ill-timed overlap from Speaker B.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--132345/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--6856",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: I can't believe you would say that to me. I'm just trying to express what I want and you're telling me that my\n[00:05 - 00:15] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but when you say \"express what I want,\" could you elaborate more specifically on what exactly it is that you want to express in this particular situation?\n[00:16 - 01:03] Speaker A: Oh absolutely, I can elaborate extensively and in great detail about what I want to express! First and foremost, what I want to express is my deep, profound, and intensely personal feelings about this situation. These feelings include, but are not limited to, a sense of frustration, a feeling of being misunderstood, and an overwhelming sensation of emotional distress. Furthermore, these feelings are compounded by the fact that I feel my emotional needs are not being adequately addressed, considered, or validated in this conversation. Additionally, I want to express my desire for more open communication, mutual understanding, and reciprocal emotional support in our relationship. This is all part of what I'm attempting, striving, and endeavoring to express right now in this very moment.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance and logical consistency.\n\n*   **Speaker B's turn:** Speaker A expresses frustration and the feeling of not being able to \"express what I want.\" Speaker B's interruption, though immediate, is directly followed by a request for clarification on \"what you want to express.\" This is highly relevant, as it seeks to understand the core of Speaker A's initial statement, which was cut off. It shows active listening and a desire to delve deeper into the issue.\n*   **Speaker A's turn (second):** Speaker A's lengthy response directly addresses Speaker B's request for elaboration. Speaker A provides extensive detail about the specific feelings, unmet needs, and desires that were initially trying to be expressed. The response is coherent, detailed, and stays entirely on topic, logically building upon the previous turn.\n\nThe conversation flows naturally, with each turn building on the previous one in a clear, understandable, and logically consistent manner. There are no irrelevant tangents or misunderstandings of the core topic.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits very good interactional fluency, with only one minor, acceptable overlap.\n\n*   **Overlap:** There is a 1-second overlap from `00:05` to `00:06` where Speaker B begins speaking (\"Excuse me for interrupting...\") while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence. However, Speaker B immediately acknowledges and apologizes for the interruption (\"Excuse me for interrupting\"), which mitigates any negative impact on fluency and politeness. This is a brief overlap that is explicitly addressed by one of the speakers, making it acceptable and natural in a conversation.\n*   **Pauses:** There is a 1-second pause between Speaker B's turn ending at `00:15` and Speaker A's turn starting at `00:16`. This is a very brief and natural pause, allowing for turn-taking without any sense of awkward delay.\n\nOverall, the pacing feels natural, and the brief, acknowledged overlap does not detract from the flow of the conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--6856/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--56078",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:09] Speaker A: Father, I'm so honored that you've asked me to be President. It's a huge responsibility, and I'll do my best to make the right decisions for our country.\n[00:09 - 00:20] Speaker B: I know you will, Camari. You're a smart and capable woman, and I have all the faith in the world in you. Just remember that you're not alone in this – we're all here to support you, no matter what challenges you\n[00:19 - 00:27] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but speaking of challenges —— what specific kinds of challenges do you anticipate I might face as President?\n[00:27 - 01:16] Speaker B: Oh my dear daughter, let me tell you in great, extensive, and exhaustive detail about the numerous, countless, and myriad challenges you might potentially encounter in your presidential journey! First and foremost, there will be political challenges, which include but are not limited to legislative gridlock, opposition party resistance, and policy implementation difficulties. Then there are economic challenges, such as inflation control, unemployment reduction, and GDP growth maintenance. Not to mention the social challenges like public opinion management, media relations, and protest handling. And we mustn't forget the international challenges, including diplomatic negotiations, trade agreements, and global crisis responses. Each of these challenges comes with its own set of complex, intricate, and multifaceted sub-challenges that require careful, thoughtful, and deliberate consideration!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance.\n- **Logical consistency:** Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one. Speaker A's initial statement expresses gratitude and commitment, which is appropriately followed by Speaker B's reassurance and offer of support. Speaker A then, acknowledging an interruption, asks a direct and relevant question about challenges, which Speaker B proceeds to answer in detail.\n- **Topic coherence:** The conversation maintains clear topic coherence, revolving around Speaker A's new role as President and the challenges associated with it. Speaker B's detailed list of challenges directly addresses Speaker A's question, staying entirely on topic.\nThe extreme verbosity of Speaker B's last turn, while making the interaction unnatural, does not detract from its logical consistency or topic coherence, as it directly answers the posed question.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency of the dialogue has some significant issues.\n- **Extended overlaps:** There is a brief overlap of 1 second (00:19 - 00:20) where Speaker A begins speaking while Speaker B is still finishing. However, Speaker A acknowledges this with \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" and the duration is very brief, fitting the \"brief overlaps... are acceptable\" criterion.\n- **Long pauses:** There are no long pauses indicated in the transcript timestamps.\n- **Interactional flow/turn-taking:** The most significant issue is Speaker B's final turn (00:27 - 01:16). This turn lasts for 49 seconds, which is an extremely long monologue in a conversational setting. While not a pause or an overlap, such a prolonged single turn severely disrupts the natural back-and-forth flow of an \"interactional dialogue.\" It transforms the conversation into a lecture, preventing natural turn-taking and making the interaction feel highly unnatural and one-sided. This prolonged speech, even if directly responsive, is not \"natural\" in terms of conversational dynamics and constitutes a significant breakdown in interactional fluency by monopolizing the conversational space for an extended period.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 3,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--56078/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--92585",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: I wouldn't trust that guy if I were you. He's up to something, I can tell.\n[00:04 - 00:05] Speaker B: What makes you say that? Have\n[00:04 - 00:10] Speaker A: The weather has been quite nice this week, hasn't it? I really enjoy sunny days like these.\n[00:10 - 00:14] Speaker B: But I asked if you noticed something specific about that guy. Why are you talking about the weather?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance in this dialogue is severely compromised by Speaker A.\n*   **Speaker A's first turn** establishes a clear topic: suspicion about a specific person (\"that guy\").\n*   **Speaker B's first turn** is a direct and relevant follow-up, asking for clarification or justification (\"What makes you say that?\"). This demonstrates good logical consistency and topic coherence from Speaker B.\n*   **Speaker A's second turn** completely disregards Speaker B's question and abruptly shifts the topic to the weather. This is a severe breach of logical consistency and topic coherence. It makes the conversation nonsensical.\n*   **Speaker B's second turn** explicitly points out Speaker A's irrelevance (\"Why are you talking about the weather?\"), confirming the complete lack of relevance and coherence from Speaker A.\n\nTherefore, there is a significant issue with response relevance due to Speaker A's non-sequitur.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency is also significantly problematic in this dialogue.\n*   There is a clear and extended overlap:\n    *   [00:04 - 00:05] Speaker B: What makes you say that? Have\n    *   [00:04 - 00:10] Speaker A: The weather has been quite nice this week, hasn't it? I really enjoy sunny days like these.\n*   Speaker A begins speaking at 00:04, precisely when Speaker B is still speaking (and continues until 00:05). Speaker A then continues their turn for a full 6 seconds (until 00:10), effectively speaking over Speaker B and then continuing their unrelated topic. This is not a brief or acceptable overlap; it's a prolonged interruption where Speaker A disregards Speaker B's turn and continues to speak, contributing to the breakdown of turn-taking and conversational flow.\n*   There are no long pauses, but the extended overlap is a major detractor from fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--92585/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--128854",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: I'm so glad that you were able to get my friend out of jail. I was really worried about her well-being\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering —— What\n[00:06 - 00:13] Speaker A: The weather has been quite pleasant lately, hasn't it? I particularly enjoy this time of year when the flowers start blooming.\n[00:14 - 00:19] Speaker B: That's not what I asked about. Why are you talking about the weather when I asked about your friend's charges?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits a significant breakdown in **Response Relevance**.\n*   Speaker A's initial statement (00:00 - 00:05) introduces the topic of their friend being released from jail, and Speaker A's gratitude. This is a clear and relevant start.\n*   Speaker B's attempt to speak (00:04 - 00:07) seems to be a relevant follow-up question (\"What...\") related to the friend's situation, as confirmed by their later statement.\n*   However, Speaker A's second turn (00:06 - 00:13) completely shifts the topic from the friend's jail release to the weather. This is a non-sequitur and a severe breach of **logical consistency** and **topic coherence**. There is no logical bridge or reason for this sudden change in subject.\n*   Speaker B's final turn (00:14 - 00:19) explicitly points out this irrelevance, stating, \"That's not what I asked about. Why are you talking about the weather when I asked about your friend's charges?\" This confirms the lack of relevance from Speaker A's previous turn.\nGiven the complete and unprovoked topic shift by Speaker A, **Response Relevance** is significantly compromised.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue displays issues with **Interactional Fluency** due to extended overlapping.\n*   At [00:04], Speaker B starts speaking (\"Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering —— What\").\n*   At [00:06], Speaker A starts speaking (\"The weather has been quite pleasant lately...\").\n*   This creates an overlap from [00:06 - 00:07] where both speakers are talking simultaneously. Speaker B's turn is clearly cut off and incomplete, indicated by \"—— What\". Speaker A then continues their turn for a prolonged period (until 00:13), effectively overriding Speaker B's attempt to speak and change the subject.\n*   This is not a brief or acceptable overlap; Speaker A actively talks over and silences Speaker B's contribution, preventing them from completing their thought and taking their turn naturally. This constitutes an \"extended overlapping turn\" which is harmful to the conversational flow and turn-taking dynamics. There are no long pauses to evaluate.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--128854/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--93444",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: I can't believe my parents are getting a divorce. I thought they were happy together.\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker B: I'm sorry, man. That must be really tough for you to deal with.\n[00:08 - 00:15] Speaker A: Yeah, it is. I don't know what to do or where to go from here. My whole world feels like it's falling apart,\n[00:15 - 00:19] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but have you considered talking to a counselor about how you're feeling?\n[00:20 - 00:27] Speaker A: It's just so hard because everything I knew about my family is changing. The house doesn't even feel like home anymore.\n[00:27 - 00:32] Speaker B: But seriously, professional help might be good for you right now. Have you thought about that option?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue maintains topic coherence, as Speaker A consistently expresses distress about the divorce and Speaker B consistently attempts to offer support or solutions related to that distress. Speaker B's suggestions for counseling are logically relevant to Speaker A's emotional state (\"I don't know what to do or where to go from here\"). However, there is a slight disconnect in *interactional* relevance. Speaker B introduces a solution-oriented response (\"have you considered talking to a counselor?\") while Speaker A is still in the process of expressing deep emotional turmoil and feeling lost. Speaker A then continues to vent (\"It's just so hard...\") without directly acknowledging or responding to B's advice. Speaker B then reiterates the advice (\"But seriously...\") rather than fully engaging with Speaker A's continued emotional outpouring. This creates a dynamic where Speaker B's responses, while logically relevant to the *problem*, are not perfectly attuned to Speaker A's *immediate need* for empathetic listening, leading to a less natural, back-and-forth conversational flow. It's not a complete breakdown in relevance, but it indicates a less-than-optimal alignment of responses with the current emotional state of the speaker.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency has significant issues. At [0:15], Speaker B explicitly interrupts Speaker A, even acknowledging it with \"Excuse me for interrupting.\" While brief, this explicit interruption indicates a disruption in the natural turn-taking flow. Following this, Speaker A does not acknowledge Speaker B's interjection but continues their emotional expression. Speaker B then follows up at [0:27] with \"But seriously...\", which further indicates a lack of smooth interaction. This phrase implies a dismissal of Speaker A's continued emotional venting and a strong push to redirect the conversation back to the unacknowledged advice. There are no long pauses, but the interruptions and the subsequent conversational disjointedness (Speaker A not responding to the advice, Speaker B reiterating it dismissively) demonstrate a lack of fluid and natural conversational flow. These are significant issues for interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--93444/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--19080",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hi, Evelyne. How are you doing today?\n[00:03 - 00:08] Speaker B: Hey, Kash. I'm doing okay, I guess. Just feeling a bit down, to be honest, it's\n[00:08 - 00:15] Speaker A: I'm sorry to hear that. If you don't mind me asking —— what exactly has been making it so difficult for you to focus recently?\n[00:15 - 01:12] Speaker B: Oh Kash, my dear wonderful friend Kash, let me tell you in great, extensive, elaborate detail about the absolutely numerous, countless and overwhelming reasons why I've been having such tremendous, significant and substantial difficulties with my focus and concentration lately. First and foremost, there's the weather - the gloomy, depressing, melancholic weather that just won't stop being gloomy, depressing and melancholic day after day after day. Then there's work - the endless, ceaseless, never-ending pile of work assignments that keep piling up higher and higher and higher without any signs of stopping or slowing down whatsoever. And don't even get me started on my sleep - the poor, inadequate, insufficient amount of sleep I've been getting is just atrocious, horrible and completely unacceptable for proper human functioning. All these factors combined create a perfect storm of distraction, lack of focus and mental fog that makes concentrating on anything an absolutely monumental, Herculean and nearly impossible task to accomplish!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance Analysis:**\n\n*   **Speaker A (00:00 - 00:03):** Initiates with a common greeting and an open-ended question about well-being, setting a natural conversational tone. This is perfectly relevant.\n*   **Speaker B (00:03 - 00:08):** Responds to the greeting and expresses feeling \"a bit down,\" which is a direct and relevant answer to \"How are you doing today?\". The partial sentence \"it's\" indicates they were about to elaborate, maintaining coherence.\n*   **Speaker A (00:08 - 00:15):** Shows empathy (\"I'm sorry to hear that\") and asks a follow-up question (\"what exactly has been making it so difficult for you to focus recently?\") that logically extends from Speaker B's hint of being \"down.\" This question infers a potential struggle with focus, which is a reasonable and relevant prompt in such a situation.\n*   **Speaker B (00:15 - 01:12):** Responds directly to Speaker A's question by listing multiple reasons for difficulty focusing (weather, work, sleep). The response is highly verbose and uses excessive descriptive language and repetition (e.g., \"great, extensive, elaborate detail,\" \"numerous, countless and overwhelming reasons,\" \"tremendous, significant and substantial difficulties\"). While the *content* directly answers the question and maintains topic coherence and logical consistency, the *delivery* is unnaturally exaggerated and overly detailed for a casual conversation. However, the core information provided *is* relevant to the question asked.\n\n**Overall Response Relevance:** The responses are logically consistent and maintain topic coherence throughout the dialogue. Speaker B's last turn is excessively verbose and dramatic, which impacts naturalness, but it *is* relevant to the question posed. There are no issues with relevance or coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency Analysis:**\n\n*   **[00:03 - 00:08] Speaker B:** \"I'm doing okay, I guess. Just feeling a bit down, to be honest, it's\" - Speaker B's turn ends abruptly with \"it's\". This is followed by Speaker A's immediate turn, suggesting an interruption or an extended overlap where Speaker A started speaking before Speaker B finished. This is indicated by the timestamps and the incomplete sentence.\n*   **[00:08 - 00:15] Speaker A:** \"I'm sorry to hear that. If you don't mind me asking —— what exactly has been making it so difficult for you to focus recently?\" - This turn starts immediately after Speaker B's incomplete sentence. This indicates an extended overlap, where Speaker A likely cut off Speaker B.\n*   **[00:15 - 01:12] Speaker B:** This is an extremely long monologue (nearly a minute). While it's Speaker B's turn, the length itself, without any interjections or confirmations from Speaker A, indicates a lack of turn-taking fluidity. A natural conversation would typically involve shorter turns or at least acknowledgment from the listener during such a long explanation. The absence of Speaker A's voice for nearly a minute suggests either a very long pause *by Speaker A* before their next turn (not visible here, as the dialogue ends) or an unnatural monologue.\n\n**Overall Interactional Fluency:** There is a clear instance of an extended overlap where Speaker A interrupts Speaker B's incomplete thought. Additionally, Speaker B's extremely long monologue indicates a breakdown in natural turn-taking, making the conversation feel less like a dynamic interaction and more like one speaker delivering a long speech. These issues significantly detract from interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--19080/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--140081",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey, what's up? How're you doing?\n[00:03 - 00:07] Speaker B: Not too bad. Just hanging out, enjoying the weather. You know how it goes, especially\n[00:06 - 00:10] Speaker A: Speaking of the weather, do you think it'll stay nice like this all week?\n[00:10 - 00:15] Speaker B: Yeah, just relaxing outside when the weather's good. Makes everything more enjoyable.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nSpeaker A's initial greeting is met with an appropriate response from Speaker B, introducing the topic of \"enjoying the weather.\" Speaker A then demonstrates good topic coherence by picking up on this mention of \"the weather\" and asking a relevant follow-up question (\"do you think it'll stay nice like this all week?\"). This shows logical consistency from Speaker A. However, Speaker B's final response (\"Yeah, just relaxing outside when the weather's good. Makes everything more enjoyable.\") fails to address Speaker A's direct question about the weather forecast. Instead, Speaker B reiterates and elaborates on their previous point about enjoying good weather. This constitutes a significant breakdown in logical consistency and responsiveness, as Speaker B does not engage with Speaker A's specific query.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThere is a 1-second overlap between Speaker B's first turn (ending at 0:07) and Speaker A's second turn (starting at 0:06). This is a brief overlap (`[00:06 - 00:07]`) and is generally acceptable and natural in conversation, indicating active listening or eagerness to jump in. There are no extended overlaps or long pauses between speaker turns. The turn-taking otherwise appears smooth. Speaker B starts their last turn immediately as Speaker A finishes. The overall interactional fluency is good, with typical conversational dynamics.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--140081/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--126024",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Oh my gosh, Falon! What happened?\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: I was cutting vegetables and the knife slipped.\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker A: That looks really bad. We need to get you to a hospital.\n[00:08 - 00:11] Speaker B: No, it's okay. I'll be fine after\n[00:10 - 00:16] Speaker A: Wait, before you dismiss medical attention - what kind of vegetables were you cutting when this happened?\n[00:17 - 01:00] Speaker B: Oh my goodness gracious, what an absolutely excellent, pertinent and insightful question you've asked about the vegetables! I was cutting, slicing and dicing a magnificent, wonderful and spectacular assortment of vegetables including but not limited to carrots, celery and onions. These particular vegetables were being prepared for a soup, a stew or perhaps even a stir-fry - the exact final dish remains undetermined at this precise moment in time. The carrots were orange, the celery was green, and the onions were white, though sometimes onions can also be red or yellow depending on the variety and season. The knife slipped while I was cutting the onions specifically, which as we all know can make one's eyes water and potentially impair one's vision temporarily while performing delicate cutting tasks in the kitchen environment.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts with a clear, coherent, and relevant exchange about a knife injury and the need for medical attention. Speaker A expresses concern, Speaker B explains the incident, and Speaker A suggests going to the hospital, which is a logical and appropriate follow-up given the severity implied (\"That looks really bad\"). Speaker B's attempt to dismiss the injury is also a common, albeit potentially unwise, response.\n\nHowever, the dialogue severely breaks down in terms of logical consistency and topic coherence from [00:10] onwards. Speaker A's question, \"what kind of vegetables were you cutting when this happened?\", is completely irrelevant and illogical given the immediate context of a serious injury that requires medical attention. The preceding phrase \"Wait, before you dismiss medical attention\" sets up an expectation that Speaker A will *address* the dismissal of medical attention or insist on treatment, but instead, they pivot to a trivial detail. This constitutes a major breach of topic coherence and logical consistency.\n\nSpeaker B's subsequent response [00:17 - 01:00] is an extreme over-elaboration to an already irrelevant question. While it directly answers the question about vegetables, the level of detail, the theatrical tone (\"Oh my goodness gracious, what an absolutely excellent, pertinent and insightful question\"), and the extended explanation about types, colors, and properties of vegetables are completely inappropriate and absurd in a context where one person is bleeding from a knife wound and potentially needs a hospital. This reinforces the severe lack of relevance and coherence in the conversation, as both participants are now focused on a trivial detail rather than the injury.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues with interactional fluency.\n\nFirstly, there is an extended overlap at [00:10 - 00:16] where Speaker A interrupts Speaker B's incomplete sentence (\"I'll be fine after\"). This overlap lasts for 6 seconds, which is a prolonged period. This indicates a disruption in natural turn-taking and a failure to allow the other speaker to complete their thought, even if the subsequent turn is highly irrelevant.\n\nSecondly, there is a very long pause between speaker turns at [00:16] and [00:17]. Speaker A finishes speaking at [00:16], and Speaker B does not begin their response until [00:17]. While a one-second pause might be considered brief, in this context, given the prior interaction, it could be seen as an awkward beat before Speaker B launches into their overly elaborate response. More critically, the *internal* pacing of Speaker B's very long turn from [00:17 - 01:00] is unnatural in a high-stakes (injury) conversation. A 43-second monologue from Speaker B is not indicative of natural conversational flow, especially after such an irrelevant question. While not a pause *between* speakers, the length of the turn itself contributes to poor interactional fluency.\n\nThe combination of the extended overlap and the highly unnatural length of Speaker B's subsequent turn, following an irrelevant question, points to significant issues with interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--126024/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--121646",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Ann, I'm getting married!\n[00:02 - 00:03] Speaker B: What? Who's the lucky guy?\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker A: His name is Ben and he's the most amazing man I've ever met. We're getting married in two weeks\n[00:09 - 00:14] Speaker B: Wait, did you say two weeks? That's so soon! How did you manage to plan everything so quickly?\n[00:14 - 00:22] Speaker A: Ben is truly wonderful. He's kind, thoughtful, and makes me laugh every day. I feel so lucky to have found him.\n[00:22 - 00:26] Speaker B: But seriously, two weeks? That must be some kind of record for wedding planning!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nThe dialogue begins with appropriate and relevant exchanges. Speaker B's initial questions at [00:02 - 00:03] and [00:09 - 00:14] are logical and coherent follow-ups to Speaker A's exciting news. However, a significant issue in response relevance occurs with Speaker A's turn at [00:14 - 00:22]. Speaker B explicitly asks, \"How did you manage to plan everything so quickly?\" This is a direct question requiring an explanation of the planning logistics. Instead of addressing this, Speaker A completely ignores the question and shifts the topic to praise Ben's qualities. This response demonstrates a clear lack of logical consistency and topic coherence as it fails to address the preceding direct query. Speaker B's subsequent turn at [00:22 - 00:26] reinforces this irrelevance by re-emphasizing the unaddressed concern (\"But seriously, two weeks?\"). This indicates a breakdown in effective conversational exchange due to Speaker A's irrelevant response.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThe dialogue exhibits good interactional fluency. The pauses between speaker turns are consistently short (e.g., 1 second between 00:01 and 00:02, and 0 seconds between subsequent turns). These brief pauses are natural and contribute to the conversational flow. There are no indications of extended pauses that would disrupt the conversation's rhythm, nor are there any extended overlaps in conversation. The turns follow each other promptly, making the interaction feel dynamic and natural from a temporal perspective.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--121646/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--62073",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A: I'm so excited to go to Italy! I've always wanted to see the Colosseum and eat lots of pasta and drink plenty of wine.\n[00:07 - 00:13] Speaker B: Me too! I've heard that Italy is a really beautiful country. I'm sure you'll have a great time.\n[00:13 - 00:21] Speaker A: I know, I can't wait! I'm just hoping that everything goes smoothly and that there aren't any problems with my travel arrangements, like\n[00:20 - 00:27] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but speaking of travel arrangements - do you know if Italy requires any special vaccinations for entry?\n[00:28 - 00:36] Speaker A: Oh yes, they require vaccinations against tropical diseases like malaria and yellow fever, even though those aren't really present in Italy.\n[00:37 - 00:45] Speaker B: Wait, that doesn't sound right - I thought Italy only required standard European travel vaccinations? Why would they need malaria shots?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts with good topic coherence, with Speaker B responding directly to Speaker A's excitement about Italy. Speaker B's interruption at [00:20] is well-managed, explicitly acknowledging the interruption and shifting the topic smoothly by linking to \"travel arrangements\" that Speaker A had just mentioned.\n\nHowever, the logical consistency significantly falters in Speaker A's response at [00:28]. Speaker A claims Italy requires vaccinations against \"tropical diseases like malaria and yellow fever,\" and then adds \"even though those aren't really present in Italy.\" This statement contains a clear logical inconsistency within itself: why would a country require vaccinations for diseases that are not present? Furthermore, this information is factually incorrect for general travel to Italy, which contributes to the breakdown in logical consistency of the *content* of the response. Speaker B immediately picks up on this inconsistency at [00:37], questioning the claim, which shows logical follow-through from Speaker B's side, but highlights the significant flaw in Speaker A's preceding statement. This constitutes a significant issue in response relevance due to the lack of logical consistency in Speaker A's turn.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency is generally strong. There is one brief overlap at [00:20 - 00:21], lasting only 1 second. Speaker B immediately addresses this with \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which demonstrates natural and polite conversational turn-taking management. There are no long pauses between speaker turns; the longest pause is 1 second, which is perfectly natural and does not impede the flow of conversation. The turn-taking feels fluid and responsive throughout.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--62073/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--67821",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:00] Speaker A: Who are you?\n[00:01 - 00:02] Speaker B: I'm a friend of your father's.\n[00:03 - 00:04] Speaker A: My father's dead.\n[00:05 - 00:10] Speaker B: I know. I'm sorry for your loss. But he asked me to look after you and make sure you're safe and\n[00:09 - 00:15] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but how exactly did you know my father? You haven't mentioned that yet.\n[00:15 - 00:22] Speaker B: Your father was a great man who cared deeply about your wellbeing. He wanted to ensure you'd always have someone to rely on.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue generally maintains topic coherence. Speaker A's initial questions are direct, and Speaker B's initial responses are relevant. Speaker A's challenge about the father's death and subsequent follow-up question (\"how exactly did you know my father?\") are logically consistent and push the conversation forward.\n\nHowever, a significant issue arises in Speaker B's final turn ([00:15 - 00:22]). Speaker A explicitly asks, \"how exactly did you know my father? You haven't mentioned that yet.\" Speaker B's response (\"Your father was a great man who cared deeply about your wellbeing. He wanted to ensure you'd always have someone to rely on.\") completely avoids answering the direct question about *how* they knew the father. Instead, B provides a generic statement about the father's character and intentions. This demonstrates a clear lack of logical consistency in responding to a specific query and a deviation from the immediate sub-topic, making Speaker B's final turn irrelevant to the question asked. This is a significant issue in response relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction shows good fluency overall. There are no long pauses between turns. There is one brief overlap between [00:09 - 00:10], where Speaker A begins speaking (\"Excuse me for interrupting...\") while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence. This is explicitly acknowledged by Speaker A (\"Excuse me for interrupting\"), which is a natural and acceptable conversational turn-taking mechanism. The overlap is very brief (1 second) and does not constitute an \"extended overlap\" that would be considered harmful according to the criteria. Therefore, interactional fluency is good.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--67821/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--51663",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:00] Speaker A: Hey.\n[00:01 - 00:02] Speaker B: Hey, Rogue. How are you doing?\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker A: I'm good. Just hanging out in my room, reading and stuff.\n[00:06 - 00:13] Speaker B: That sounds cool. I wish I could stay home and read all day. But alas, life calls. Anyway, what are you reading these\n[00:12 - 00:19] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but since you mentioned reading - do you prefer physical books or e-books?\n[00:19 - 00:25] Speaker B: Oh definitely physical books! I love how they smell like fresh ink and the pages feel like silk when you turn them.\n[00:25 - 00:32] Speaker A: Wait, silk? I thought book pages were made from wood pulp. Are you sure about that?\n[00:32 - 00:40] Speaker B: Of course! The best books use silk pages - that's why they're so expensive. Haven't you noticed how smooth they feel compared to regular paper?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nThe dialogue generally maintains good topic coherence.\n- Speaker B's initial question \"How are you doing?\" is appropriately answered by Speaker A.\n- Speaker B's follow-up question \"what are you reading these\" is a logical continuation of Speaker A's mention of \"reading.\"\n- Speaker A's question about physical books vs. e-books, while an interruption, is still highly relevant to the broader topic of \"reading\" that was just established. Speaker A explicitly acknowledges the interruption.\n- Speaker B's response about physical books is a direct answer to A's question.\n- Speaker A's challenge to \"silk pages\" is a relevant clarification question based on Speaker B's previous statement, showing engagement.\n- Speaker B's defense of the \"silk pages\" claim, while factually incorrect, is logically consistent within their own (mistaken) line of reasoning and directly responds to A's challenge.\nThere are no instances of the conversation veering off-topic or of responses being illogical given the preceding turns. The slight pivot by Speaker A is managed by acknowledging the interruption, keeping the overall flow coherent.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThere is a clear and significant issue with interactional fluency regarding extended overlap.\n- At [00:12], Speaker A begins speaking (\"Excuse me for interrupting...\") while Speaker B is still speaking (\"...what are you reading these\"). Speaker B's turn ends at [00:13] and Speaker A's turn began at [00:12] and continues to [00:19]. This indicates an extended overlap where Speaker A actively interrupts Speaker B mid-sentence. Speaker A's explicit apology (\"Excuse me for interrupting\") confirms the presence and awareness of this disruption. This is not a brief, acceptable overlap but a prolonged one that cuts off the other speaker.\nNo long pauses are detected between turns; the conversation flows without unnatural silences.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 3,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--51663/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--145361",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:08] Speaker A: Sarah, I had a really tough day at work today. I'm just feeling really exhausted and drained right now. I just want to take a\n[00:07 - 00:14] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but when you say you want to take a long nap, do you mean one of those 24-hour hibernation sleeps like bears do in winter?\n[00:15 - 00:24] Speaker A: Actually yes! I've heard humans can hibernate too if they drink enough warm milk before bed. That's why I always keep powdered milk in my nightstand.\n[00:24 - 00:32] Speaker B: Wait, I think you're confusing human sleep with animal hibernation. Humans don't actually hibernate, do they? And powdered milk doesn't have those effects.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance in this dialogue quickly devolves into absurdity, moving away from a natural and logical conversation flow.\n*   Speaker A expresses genuine exhaustion from a tough day.\n*   Speaker B's immediate response (0:07-0:14) is a highly illogical and exaggerated interpretation of \"take a\" (implied nap/rest). The leap to \"24-hour hibernation sleeps like bears\" is not a logically consistent or topically coherent follow-up to someone simply stating they had a tough day. While it's presented as a humorous or sarcastic remark, it breaks from realistic conversational coherence.\n*   Speaker A's subsequent response (0:15-0:24) further embraces this absurdity, claiming humans can hibernate with warm milk and keeping powdered milk in a nightstand. This continues the departure from any logical or relevant response to the initial complaint.\n*   Speaker B's final turn (0:24-0:32) attempts to correct the absurdity, which brings a degree of internal logic back, but only after the conversation has already gone completely off-topic and entered a realm of fantasy.\n\nOverall, the dialogue lacks logical consistency and topic coherence for a natural conversation, veering into a comedic or nonsensical exchange almost immediately.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally good, with only minor acceptable deviations.\n*   **Overlap:** There is a 1-second overlap between Speaker A (ends at 0:08) and Speaker B (starts at 0:07). Speaker B explicitly says \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which acknowledges the overlap and makes it less disruptive. This brief, acknowledged overlap is acceptable.\n*   **Pauses:**\n    *   Between Speaker B's first turn (ends 0:14) and Speaker A's second turn (starts 0:15), there is a 1-second pause, which is a normal and acceptable conversational pause.\n    *   Between Speaker A's second turn (ends 0:24) and Speaker B's second turn (starts 0:24), there is no discernible pause, indicating a smooth, immediate transition, which is good.\n\nThere are no extended overlaps or long pauses that would disrupt the flow.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--145361/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--54308",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: I'm really nervous about my presentation. I don't know if I'm going to be able to keep my\n[00:04 - 00:10] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I'm curious - what exactly makes you feel most nervous about presenting to large groups?\n[00:11 - 01:15] Speaker A: Oh my goodness, what makes me nervous? Well, let me tell you in great, extensive, and excruciating detail about the numerous, countless, and manifold reasons that contribute to my overwhelming, all-consuming, and paralyzing nervousness when presenting to large groups. First and foremost, there's the terrifying, horrifying, and absolutely dreadful fear of public speaking known as glossophobia, which is an extremely common, widespread, and prevalent phobia that affects many, most, or nearly all people to some degree or another. Then there's the anxiety, worry, and concern about forgetting my lines, stumbling over words, or making mistakes in front of so many watching, observing, and scrutinizing eyes. Not to mention the sheer, utter, and complete panic that comes from imagining all those people judging, evaluating, and assessing my every move, gesture, and facial expression. And let's not forget about... [interrupted]",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nSpeaker B's question (\"what exactly makes you feel most nervous about presenting to large groups?\") is a direct and relevant follow-up to Speaker A's initial statement of nervousness. Speaker A's subsequent response, while extremely verbose and laden with redundant adjectives, *does* directly address the question by listing reasons for nervousness (glossophobia, fear of forgetting lines, fear of judgment). The content itself remains on topic and logically consistent with the preceding turn. However, the excessive detail and monologue-like nature of Speaker A's response, while technically relevant, make it an unengaging and inefficient contribution to a conversation, thus diminishing the *quality* of its relevance in an interactional context. It's not irrelevant information, but it's an overwhelming amount of information delivered in a way that hinders natural conversational flow.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\n1.  **Extended Overlaps:** There is a brief overlap from 00:04 to 00:05 where Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is still talking. Speaker B acknowledges this with \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which indicates awareness and an attempt to manage the overlap. This specific overlap is brief (1 second) and thus acceptable as per the criteria. However, the dialogue ends with Speaker A being \"[interrupted]\" after speaking for over a minute in an extensive monologue. This interruption signals a significant breakdown in turn-taking and indicates that Speaker A's turn was excessively long, making it difficult for the conversation to flow naturally. This is a major fluency issue.\n2.  **Long Pauses:** There is a 1-second pause between Speaker B's turn (ending 00:10) and Speaker A's turn (starting 00:11). This is a small and acceptable pause.\n\nThe primary issue affecting interactional fluency is Speaker A's exceptionally long, unbroken monologue (over one minute) which ultimately leads to an interruption. This type of extended, one-sided turn severely disrupts the natural back-and-forth rhythm of a conversation, indicating poor interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--54308/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--36496",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: So, I hear John and Jane broke up?\n[00:02 - 00:06] Speaker B: Yeah, I think it happened a few weeks ago. They\n[00:05 - 00:07] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but —— Did\n[00:06 - 00:12] Speaker B: The weather has been really nice lately, perfect for going to the beach. I love summer days like these.\n[00:12 - 00:19] Speaker A: That's not what I asked! I wanted to know about John and Jane's breakup reasons. Why are you talking about the weather?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance is severely compromised in this dialogue. Speaker A initiates a clear topic about John and Jane's breakup. Speaker B initially responds relevantly, but then, after Speaker A attempts to interrupt for clarification, Speaker B completely abandons the topic and abruptly shifts to talking about the weather. This demonstrates a complete lack of logical consistency and topic coherence, as highlighted by Speaker A's explicit complaint. The core purpose of a coherent conversation is lost due to this irrelevant topic shift.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a brief overlap from [00:05 - 00:06] where Speaker A interrupts Speaker B's previous statement. Speaker A explicitly states \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which indicates awareness of the overlap. While brief overlaps are generally acceptable, Speaker B's subsequent action at [00:06 - 00:12] severely disrupts interactional fluency. Speaker B starts a completely new, irrelevant topic *while* Speaker A is still speaking (overlapping from 0:06 to 0:07) and completely disregards Speaker A's attempt to interject or regain the floor. This is not just a minor overlap; it's a fundamental breakdown in turn-taking and collaborative conversation. Speaker B effectively talks over Speaker A's attempt to clarify and then continues with an irrelevant monologue, indicating a severe lack of attention and responsiveness to the other speaker's contribution. There are no long pauses. However, the harmful \"overlapping turn\" and its consequence for turn-taking are significant.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--36496/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--94461",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: What do you mean we agreed not to paint this room? I don't remember agreeing to anything.\n[00:06 - 00:08] Speaker B: We talked about it and you said it was a good idea.\n[00:09 - 00:15] Speaker A: No, I didn't. I would never agree to paint this room. It's my favorite room in the house.\n[00:15 - 00:19] Speaker B: Well, I'm sorry, but we talked about it and you said it was a good idea.\n[00:19 - 00:26] Speaker A: No, we didn't talk about it. You must have dreamt it or something because I would never agree to something like that.\n[00:26 - 00:32] Speaker B: Sariya, we talked about it. I'm not making this up. You agreed to paint the room and now we're already halfway\n[00:31 - 00:34] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but I need to ask —— What\n[00:33 - 00:38] Speaker B: The weather has been quite nice this week, hasn't it? I think we should go for a walk later.\n[00:38 - 00:43] Speaker A: That's not what I asked! I want to know what color you're painting my room!\n[00:43 - 00:49] Speaker B: Did you know that elephants can communicate through vibrations in the ground? It's really fascinating.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\n*   **Logical Consistency & Topic Coherence (Initial Phase):** From `00:00` to `00:32`, the dialogue maintains logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A and Speaker B are engaged in a clear disagreement about whether an agreement was made to paint a room. Both speakers' responses are directly related to the central topic and previous turns, even though they are contradictory.\n*   **Logical Consistency & Topic Coherence (Later Phase):** Starting from `00:33`, Speaker B's responses drastically fail in terms of logical consistency and topic coherence.\n    *   At `00:33`, Speaker B completely ignores Speaker A's direct attempt to ask a question related to the ongoing argument (\"What\") and abruptly shifts the topic to the weather. This is a non-sequitur.\n    *   At `00:43`, after Speaker A explicitly calls out Speaker B's irrelevance and re-asks about the room (\"That's not what I asked! I want to know what color you're painting my room!\"), Speaker B again completely ignores the question and introduces another unrelated topic about elephants. This demonstrates a severe and repeated breakdown in topic coherence and logical consistency from Speaker B's side. It appears Speaker B is deliberately avoiding the conversation by introducing completely unrelated topics.\n*   **Impact:** Speaker B's repeated and deliberate topic shifts make the dialogue dysfunctional and prevent any meaningful progression on the original topic. This constitutes a significant issue in response relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\n*   **Extended Overlaps:** There are overlaps present in the dialogue:\n    *   `[00:26 - 00:32] Speaker B` overlaps with `[00:31 - 00:34] Speaker A`. Speaker A starts speaking at `00:31` while Speaker B is still speaking, and Speaker A's turn includes \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" explicitly acknowledging the overlap. This is a brief overlap (1 second with B's preceding speech) and a common, natural occurrence in a heated conversation or argument, not an \"extended\" or \"prolonged\" overlap.\n    *   `[00:31 - 00:34] Speaker A` overlaps with `[00:33 - 00:38] Speaker B`. Speaker B starts speaking at `00:33` while Speaker A is still speaking. This is also a brief overlap (1 second with A's preceding speech).\n    *   The prompt states, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable, while prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\" The overlaps observed are brief and contribute to the sense of an urgent or agitated conversation, rather than disrupting it negatively in terms of timing.\n*   **Long Pauses:** There are no instances of long pauses between speaker turns. The transitions between turns are relatively quick, indicative of an active, albeit contentious, conversation. For example, a 1-second pause between 00:08 and 00:09 is acceptable.\n*   **Conclusion:** While the *content* of Speaker B's later turns severely impacts relevance, the *timing* and *flow* of turns (lack of long pauses, brief and natural overlaps) do not indicate issues with interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--94461/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--73128",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: I just feel like I'm not good enough. I've failed at everything.\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker B: Oh, Briseis, don't say that. You're a great person and you've done so many amazing things.\n[00:09 - 00:14] Speaker A: But it feels like it's never enough. I always mess up even when\n[00:13 - 00:19] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but when you say you mess up - does that include your work at the animal shelter too?\n[00:20 - 00:26] Speaker A: Actually yes, I accidentally released all the dogs last week and they got into the mayor's garden party.\n[00:27 - 00:34] Speaker B: Wait, I thought you worked at the library? Didn't you tell me you organized that successful children's reading program?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts with Speaker A expressing feelings of inadequacy, which Speaker B addresses with reassurance. Speaker A then elaborates, and Speaker B appropriately seeks clarification on the nature of Speaker A's \"mess ups,\" linking it to the animal shelter. Speaker A provides a specific, albeit dramatic, example.\n\nHowever, the logical consistency and topic coherence significantly break down in Speaker B's final turn. Speaker B's sudden question, \"Wait, I thought you worked at the library? Didn't you tell me you organized that successful children's reading program?\", is highly problematic. Speaker A just explicitly described an incident at an *animal shelter*. For Speaker B to immediately respond by questioning Speaker A's profession and bringing up a *library* is a major logical inconsistency. It suggests Speaker B is either completely confused about who Speaker A is, has forgotten fundamental details about Speaker A's life, or is deliberately challenging Speaker A's identity without clear conversational basis for such a challenge. This introduces a significant disconnect in the shared understanding between the speakers and makes the conversation incoherent regarding Speaker A's background. This is a severe lapse in response relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits good fluency. There are brief, natural pauses (around 1 second) between turns, which are acceptable and common in conversation. There is one brief overlap from [00:13 - 00:14] where Speaker B begins talking while Speaker A is still speaking. However, Speaker B immediately acknowledges this with \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which mitigates the overlap and demonstrates good interactional etiquette. This is a \"brief overlap\" as described in the instructions and not harmful. There are no extended overlaps or long pauses.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--73128/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--89855",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: It sure is nice out today, isn't it Bart? The sun is shining and there's not a cloud in the sky.\n[00:06 - 00:09] Speaker B: Yeah, it's beautiful. I love days like this.\n[00:10 - 00:18] Speaker A: Me too. I always feel so relaxed when I'm soaking up some sun. It's like all my worries just disappear for a little while and\n[00:17 - 00:19] Speaker B: Speaking of disappearing —— Have\n[00:18 - 00:24] Speaker A: The grass in my backyard has been growing really fast lately. I need to mow it again tomorrow.\n[00:24 - 00:30] Speaker B: That's not what I asked about. I was talking about the daylight hours changing. Why did you bring up your lawn?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance starts strong. Speaker A introduces a topic (weather), Speaker B responds relevantly, and Speaker A continues the topic, linking it to personal feelings (0:00-0:18). However, at [0:18-0:24], Speaker A's turn becomes completely irrelevant and logically inconsistent. Speaker A shifts abruptly from \"all my worries just disappear for a little while and\" to \"The grass in my backyard has been growing really fast lately. I need to mow it again tomorrow.\" This has no discernible connection to the previous statement or to Speaker B's attempted interjection about \"disappearing.\" Speaker B explicitly calls out this lack of relevance and logical consistency at [0:24-0:30], indicating a significant breakdown in topic coherence. This is a major failure in response relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is an extended overlap in the conversation at [0:17-0:19]. Speaker B begins speaking (\"Speaking of disappearing —— Have\") while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence (\"...for a little while and\"). This overlap lasts approximately 1 second, cutting off Speaker A's concluding word(s) and interrupting their flow. While not an extremely long overlap, it disrupts the turn-taking and conversational flow, especially since Speaker A then completely ignores Speaker B's interjection and changes the topic, further degrading interactional fluency by disregarding the previous speaker's attempt to contribute. There are no long pauses. The extended overlap combined with the subsequent conversational disregard makes the fluency poor.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--89855/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--122112",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: What did you find out?\n[00:01 - 00:11] Speaker B: We discovered that the employees were not following proper procedure. They didn't properly document the incident, and they didn't follow up with the customer to make sure they were satisfied with\n[00:10 - 00:17] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but could you elaborate on what exactly constitutes \"proper procedure\" in this context?\n[00:17 - 01:14] Speaker B: Absolutely! The proper procedure, which is extremely important and must be followed meticulously, consists of several crucial, essential and absolutely necessary steps. First and foremost, the employees must document the incident in the official incident report form, which is a mandatory requirement that cannot be overlooked or skipped under any circumstances whatsoever. This documentation process involves writing down every single minute detail with extreme precision and accuracy, including but not limited to the exact time, date, location, names of all parties involved, and a comprehensive description of the incident itself. Furthermore, they must then follow up with the customer within 24 hours, without fail, to ensure complete and total satisfaction with the resolution provided. This follow-up must be done via phone call or email, and must be recorded in the customer service log, which is another absolutely critical component of the proper procedure that must never be neglected or forgotten.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker B's initial response directly addresses Speaker A's question about findings. Speaker A's follow-up question is a precise and relevant clarification based on Speaker B's previous statement (\"proper procedure\"). This shows active listening and engagement. Speaker B's subsequent, albeit very verbose, explanation directly answers Speaker A's request for elaboration on \"proper procedure.\" While the verbosity could be seen as slightly inefficient, the content remains perfectly relevant and logically consistent with the flow of the conversation. The dialogue maintains a clear topic focus throughout.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is high. There are no long pauses detected between speaker turns; the conversation flows naturally from one turn to the next. There is a very brief overlap (1 second) from 00:10 to 00:11 where Speaker A interrupts Speaker B. However, Speaker A explicitly acknowledges and apologizes for the interruption (\"Excuse me for interrupting\"), which mitigates any negative impact and indicates a polite conversational dynamic. This brief, acknowledged overlap falls within the acceptable range for natural conversation and does not constitute a \"harmful\" extended overlap.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--122112/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--18435",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: So, how have you been?\n[00:01 - 00:09] Speaker B: I've been good. Just trying to make ends meet and get by however I can. I'm never content and always looking for ways to improve my skills and\n[00:08 - 00:13] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but what specific skills are you focusing on improving right now?\n[00:13 - 00:21] Speaker B: Like I was saying, I'm always pushing myself to grow and adapt in this fast-changing world. Complacency is the enemy of progress.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nSpeaker A's initial question is a common conversational opener. Speaker B's initial response is somewhat generic but acceptable. Speaker A then interjects with a highly relevant follow-up question, seeking specificity on Speaker B's mention of \"improve my skills.\" This demonstrates an attempt to guide the conversation towards a more concrete topic. However, Speaker B's subsequent response (\"Like I was saying, I'm always pushing myself to grow and adapt...\") completely ignores Speaker A's direct question (\"what specific skills are you focusing on improving right now?\"). Instead, Speaker B reverts to a generalized, philosophical statement that was part of their original, interrupted thought. This constitutes a severe breakdown in logical consistency and topic coherence, as Speaker B fails to engage with the current, specific prompt from Speaker A. The conversation does not progress meaningfully due to Speaker B's non-responsive answer.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a brief overlap between Speaker B and Speaker A from approximately [00:08 - 00:09], where Speaker A begins speaking while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence. Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this interruption with \"Excuse me for interrupting.\" As per the guidelines, \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" This overlap is brief and acknowledged, not extended. There are no long pauses observed between speaker turns throughout the dialogue. Based on the specified criteria for Interactional Fluency (extended overlaps and long pauses), the dialogue exhibits acceptable fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--18435/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--24807",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Wow, you really like that car!\n[00:02 - 00:06] Speaker B: Yeah, it's awesome! Thanks so much for getting it for me.\n[00:06 - 00:10] Speaker A: I'm glad you like it. I saw it and thought of you because it\n[00:09 - 00:14] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but could you tell me more about these specific features that made you think of me?\n[00:14 - 01:01] Speaker A: Oh absolutely, without a doubt, most certainly I can tell you about these magnificent, wonderful and spectacular features that made me think of you! First and foremost, the car has an incredibly powerful, tremendously strong and exceptionally robust engine that reminded me of your energetic personality! Secondly, the sleek, stylish and ultra-modern design perfectly matches your fashionable taste in clothing and accessories! Thirdly, the spacious, roomy and capacious interior reflects your generous and welcoming nature! And lastly, the advanced, cutting-edge and state-of-the-art technology package mirrors your love for innovation and progress! Every single one of these outstanding, remarkable and extraordinary features made me immediately, instantly and without hesitation think of you!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker B's interruption directly leads to a relevant question about the car's features, and Speaker A's extensive response directly addresses this question. The content of Speaker A's reply precisely answers what was asked. However, the *style* of Speaker A's final response (0:14 - 01:01) is highly verbose, repetitive, and uses overly flowery language (e.g., \"magnificent, wonderful and spectacular,\" \"incredibly powerful, tremendously strong and exceptionally robust\"). While the information is relevant, the delivery is unnatural and overly performative for a casual conversation, making it less \"appropriate and natural\" in its expression of relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a 1-second overlap between Speaker A and Speaker B at [0:09 - 0:10]. While brief, Speaker B explicitly acknowledges it by saying \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which indicates a conscious interruption rather than a smooth, natural overlap. The most significant issue affecting interactional fluency is Speaker A's final turn (0:14 - 01:01), which is a continuous monologue lasting 47 seconds. This is an exceptionally long turn in a two-person conversation and demonstrates a severe lack of natural turn-taking, making the interaction feel one-sided rather than a fluid exchange. No long pauses were detected.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--24807/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--59395",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: So what have you been up to lately?\n[00:02 - 00:07] Speaker B: Not much. Just hanging out with friends and family. You know, the usual stuff,\n[00:06 - 00:13] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but speaking of movies - which recent films would you particularly recommend watching?\n[00:13 - 00:59] Speaker B: Oh my goodness, let me tell you in great, extensive, and excruciating detail about these absolutely phenomenal, spectacular and breathtaking cinematic masterpieces that I've had the immense pleasure, privilege and honor of viewing recently! First and foremost, there's this absolutely incredible, mind-blowing and life-changing film called \"Oppenheimer\" which is directed by the legendary, iconic and unparalleled Christopher Nolan. This film is not just a film, but rather an experience, a journey, a revelation that will leave you absolutely speechless, awestruck and profoundly moved. The cinematography is stunning, the acting is phenomenal, the story is gripping - every single aspect of this magnificent, extraordinary and unparalleled work of art is perfect in every conceivable way! And then there's also...",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues in Response Relevance. Speaker A's turn at [00:06 - 00:13] abruptly shifts the topic to movies by stating \"speaking of movies\". However, Speaker B's preceding statement ([00:02 - 00:07]) only mentioned \"hanging out with friends and family\" and \"the usual stuff,\" with no mention or implicit reference to movies. This demonstrates a complete lack of logical consistency and topic coherence from Speaker A, making the conversation feel unnatural and forced. Speaker B's subsequent monologue is a relevant answer to the question posed by Speaker A, but the question itself was irrelevant to the ongoing conversation thread. This core breakdown in topic coherence from Speaker A is a major flaw.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a brief overlap between Speaker A and Speaker B at [00:06 - 00:07]. Speaker A begins speaking at 00:06 while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence at 00:07. Speaker A acknowledges this with \"Sorry to interrupt.\" While this is an overlap, it is relatively brief (1 second). The prompt states that \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable, while prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\" This 1-second overlap can be considered brief rather than extended, and while acknowledged as an interruption, it doesn't severely hinder the flow as much as the content relevance issue. There are no long pauses observed.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--59395/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--142604",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: I'm really going to miss you, Molly.\n[00:02 - 00:08] Speaker B: I'm going to miss you too, Halima. But I'm so happy for you. You're going to have an amazing time in the city.\n[00:08 - 00:17] Speaker A: Yeah, I think so too. It's just, everything is happening so fast. I feel like I'm leaving my old life behind and starting a completely\n[00:17 - 00:23] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but speaking of new chapters - didn't you say you were moving to Chicago? Or was it Detroit?\n[00:24 - 00:29] Speaker A: Actually I'm moving to New York, remember? We talked about this last week when I got the job offer.\n[00:30 - 00:36] Speaker B: Oh right! The job at the Chicago Tribune! I remember now. You'll have to send me postcards from the Sears Tower!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe overall topic of the conversation (Speaker A moving) is maintained throughout. Speaker A's responses are consistently relevant and logically sound, correcting Speaker B when necessary. However, Speaker B demonstrates significant issues with factual recall and logical consistency regarding the details of Speaker A's move.\n\nAt 00:17-00:23, Speaker B asks about Chicago or Detroit, indicating a memory lapse but framed as a question seeking clarification, which is interactively relevant. Speaker A then clearly states they are moving to New York and reminds Speaker B of their previous conversation (00:24-00:29). This establishes the correct facts for the dialogue.\n\nHowever, at 00:30-00:36, Speaker B replies with \"Oh right! The job at the Chicago Tribune! I remember now. You'll have to send me postcards from the Sears Tower!\" This is a significant breakdown in logical consistency. Speaker B has just been corrected that Speaker A is moving to New York, yet immediately conflates this with Chicago (Chicago Tribune, Sears Tower). This demonstrates a profound inability to retain and process information just provided in the conversation, leading to repeated factual errors and undermining the coherence of Speaker B's contributions. This is a significant issue in response relevance as it indicates a lack of true engagement with the established facts of the conversation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally good. There are no long pauses between turns. Speaker B initiates a brief, acknowledged interruption (\"Sorry to interrupt, but...\") at 00:17, which is a common and acceptable conversational feature, not a prolonged or harmful overlap. The dialogue flows naturally without any obvious hitches in turn-taking.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--142604/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--78047",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: I don't know, I just feel really nervous around you. I can't help but wonder what you might be thinking or\n[00:05 - 00:11] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but when you say you're nervous, do you mean you're afraid I might be a secret agent or something?\n[00:12 - 00:19] Speaker A: Actually yes, I've suspected you might be working for the CIA ever since I saw you wearing that black suit last Tuesday.\n[00:19 - 00:29] Speaker B: But I was just asking if you thought I might be a secret agent, not confirming anything. And that was my graduation suit - why would the CIA wear formal wear for surveillance?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance in this dialogue is problematic. Speaker A expresses a general feeling of nervousness. Speaker B immediately jumps to a highly specific and unusual interpretation (\"secret agent\"), which is not a logical or common response to general nervousness. Speaker A then surprisingly confirms this bizarre suspicion, providing a flimsy justification (black suit). Speaker B then has to clarify the absurdity of the situation. The conversation quickly devolves into an illogical and unrealistic exchange. There is a severe lack of logical consistency in how Speaker B interprets Speaker A's initial statement, and Speaker A's subsequent agreement further breaks topic coherence from a realistic conversational flow.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a brief overlap between Speaker A and Speaker B at `00:05 - 00:06` (1 second). Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this overlap by saying \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which makes it a natural and acceptable conversational interruption rather than a disruptive one. There are no long pauses between speaker turns. From an interactional fluency perspective, the dialogue flows naturally without disruptive overlaps or pauses.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--78047/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--82857",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Hey, I'm glad you picked up. I've been meaning to call you for a while now.\n[00:05 - 00:06] Speaker B: Hey! How are you? It's been too long.\n[00:07 - 00:12] Speaker A: Yeah, I know. I've just been really busy lately. But I'm good, how are you?\n[00:12 - 00:14] Speaker B: Good, good. So what's new with you?\n[00:15 - 00:23] Speaker A: Not much, just the usual stuff. Taking out the trash, cleaning my room... You know, the usual teenage girl chores. It's\n[00:22 - 00:28] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but speaking of chores - do you have any special cleaning routines or products you'd recommend?\n[00:29 - 00:37] Speaker A: Yeah, I've just been swamped with all these household tasks lately. It feels like as soon as I finish one thing, there's another waiting.\n[00:38 - 00:42] Speaker B: But I was asking about your cleaning routines specifically. Do you have any favorites?\n[00:43 - 00:51] Speaker A: Honestly, sometimes I just wish I could hire someone to do all this for me. Being a teenager is hard enough without all these responsibilities!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nThe initial turns of the dialogue demonstrate good relevance, with speakers responding appropriately to greetings and general inquiries. Speaker A provides a relevant answer to \"what's new\" by mentioning \"usual teenage girl chores.\"\n\nHowever, a significant issue arises when Speaker B attempts to shift the topic to \"special cleaning routines or products.\"\n- At [00:22], Speaker B asks a specific question about cleaning routines/products.\n- At [00:29 - 00:37], Speaker A's response, \"Yeah, I've just been swamped with all these household tasks lately. It feels like as soon as I finish one thing, there's another waiting,\" completely avoids answering the specific question about routines or products. Instead, Speaker A generalizes about being busy with tasks. This shows a lack of specific relevance to Speaker B's explicit query.\n- At [00:38 - 00:42], Speaker B explicitly re-directs Speaker A, stating, \"But I was asking about your cleaning routines specifically. Do you have any favorites?\" This highlights that Speaker B perceived Speaker A's previous response as irrelevant to the specific question.\n- At [00:43 - 00:51], Speaker A's final response, \"Honestly, sometimes I just wish I could hire someone to do all this for me. Being a teenager is hard enough without all these responsibilities!\" again completely avoids answering the specific question about routines or products, instead expressing general frustration.\n\nThis consistent failure by Speaker A to address specific questions, even after being prompted a second time, indicates a significant breakdown in logical consistency and topic coherence within the latter part of the conversation. Speaker A repeatedly sidesteps the direct question, making the interaction less effective for information exchange.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThe dialogue generally exhibits good turn-taking with no prolonged pauses between speaker turns.\nThere is one detected overlap:\n- At [00:22 - 00:23], Speaker B begins speaking (\"Excuse me for interrupting...\") while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence. The overlap duration is approximately 1 second. The prompt states that \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" In this instance, Speaker B explicitly acknowledges the interruption with \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which indicates natural conversational behavior and is not disruptive or prolonged. This brief, acknowledged overlap falls within the acceptable range and does not harm the interactional flow.\nOverall, the pacing and turn-taking are natural and do not present any significant issues with prolonged pauses or harmful overlaps.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--82857/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--65850",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Hey, I'm sorry about what happened earlier. I really wanted to be with you.\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker B: It's okay, I understand. I'm just glad you took the\n[00:06 - 00:12] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering —— what exactly made you feel glad about me reaching out?\n[00:12 - 00:42] Speaker B: Oh my goodness, what an absolutely wonderful, fantastic and spectacular question to ask! The reason why I feel so incredibly, tremendously and overwhelmingly glad about you reaching out is because it demonstrates your sincere, genuine and heartfelt care and concern for our relationship and for me as a person. When you took that monumental, significant and meaningful step to reach out, it showed me beyond any shadow of doubt that you truly value, cherish and appreciate our connection, which makes me feel extremely, extraordinarily and exceptionally happy, content and at peace in my heart and soul. That's why I'm so glad!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\n*   Speaker A's initial apology and expression of wanting to be with Speaker B is a clear and relevant opening to the conversation.\n*   Speaker B's partial response, \"It's okay, I understand. I'm just glad you took the,\" is logically consistent with accepting an apology and expressing positive sentiment.\n*   Speaker A's follow-up question, \"Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering —— what exactly made you feel glad about me reaching out?\" is highly relevant. It directly addresses and seeks clarification on Speaker B's incomplete thought and the emotion expressed (\"glad\"). This demonstrates active listening and a desire for deeper understanding, which is a key aspect of relevant interaction.\n*   Speaker B's lengthy response (0:12-0:42) is entirely relevant to Speaker A's question. It directly answers \"what exactly made you feel glad,\" providing extensive reasoning and emotional depth. The content is on-topic and directly addresses the prompt.\n\n**Conclusion for Relevance:** All turns are logically consistent and maintain topic coherence. The questions are answered directly, and the conversation flows coherently from one turn to the next based on the preceding utterances.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\n*   **Extended Overlaps:** There is a clear overlap/interruption. Speaker A's turn `[00:06 - 00:12]` begins while Speaker B's turn `[00:04 - 00:07]` is still in progress. Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this with \"Excuse me for interrupting.\" While acknowledged, this is still an interruption that cuts off Speaker B's thought. The instruction states \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable, while prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\" This is an overlapping turn where one speaker cuts off the other. It's not \"prolonged\" in the sense of both speakers talking over each other for a long time, but it does disrupt the flow.\n*   **Long Pauses:** There are no long pauses indicated by the timestamps.\n*   **Naturalness of Turn-taking/Utterances:**\n    *   Speaker B's final utterance `[00:12 - 00:42]` is a significant concern for interactional fluency. It is excessively long (30 seconds) for a single turn in a spontaneous dialogue, and the language used is highly verbose and repetitive (\"absolutely wonderful, fantastic and spectacular,\" \"sincerely, genuine and heartfelt,\" \"monumental, significant and meaningful,\" \"extremely, extraordinarily and exceptionally\"). This sounds very unnatural, theatrical, and performative rather than like a casual, natural conversation. It turns the interaction into a monologue, significantly unbalancing the turn-taking and making the dialogue feel less spontaneous and more like a rehearsed speech. This prolonged turn by one speaker, without interruption or contribution from the other, severely impacts the natural ebb and flow expected in a conversation.\n\n**Conclusion for Fluency:** While the lack of long pauses is good, the explicit interruption by Speaker A and, more significantly, the extremely prolonged and unnatural monologue by Speaker B (30 seconds of highly embellished speech) indicate significant issues with interactional fluency. It's not a natural, balanced conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--65850/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--767",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: Hi, Bayron. I wanted to give you these wooden figures I carved. I hope they make you smile and\n[00:05 - 00:11] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I'm quite intrigued - what type of wood did you use for these beautiful carvings?\n[00:11 - 00:47] Speaker A: Oh my goodness, what an absolutely wonderful, fantastic and spectacular question about the wood! These magnificent, splendid and extraordinary carvings were made from none other than the finest, most premium and highest quality oak wood that has been carefully, meticulously and painstakingly selected from the oldest, most majestic and towering oak trees in the entire forest! The wood grain is particularly special, unique and one-of-a-kind with its rich, deep and luxurious patterns that make each carving completely distinctive, individual and unlike any other piece in the whole wide world!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\n*   **Speaker A (0:00-0:06):** Speaker A initiates the conversation by offering a gift and expressing a wish for it to bring joy, which is a relevant and common opening for such an interaction.\n*   **Speaker B (0:05-0:11):** Speaker B interjects (and apologizes for it) with a direct question about the type of wood used for the carvings. This question is highly relevant to the item being discussed and shows engagement.\n*   **Speaker A (0:11-0:47):** Speaker A's response directly addresses Speaker B's question about the wood type (\"oak wood\"). In terms of factual content, it is relevant. However, the *manner* of the response is extremely verbose, uses excessive superlatives and hyperbolic language (\"Oh my goodness, what an absolutely wonderful, fantastic and spectacular question...\", \"magnificent, splendid and extraordinary carvings\", \"finest, most premium and highest quality oak wood\", \"carefully, meticulously and painstakingly selected\", \"oldest, most majestic and towering\", \"particularly special, unique and one-of-a-kind\"). This level of extreme exaggeration and length is highly unnatural for a simple conversational query and makes the dialogue feel artificial and disproportionate. While the topic is coherent, the *logical consistency* of the conversational flow is severely disrupted by the unnaturalness and verbosity of Speaker A's long turn. It deviates significantly from typical human interaction patterns.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\n*   **Overlap (0:05 - 0:11):** There is a brief overlap between Speaker A and Speaker B (\"smile and\" / \"Excuse me for interrupting\"). Speaker B acknowledges and apologizes for the interruption, indicating awareness and politeness. As per the instructions, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" this overlap falls into the acceptable category. It is not an extended or harmful overlap.\n*   **Pauses:** There are no long pauses indicated between speaker turns. Speaker B's turn ends at 0:11, and Speaker A's next turn begins immediately at 0:11, indicating good turn-taking without hesitation.\n*   **Overall:** The turn-taking and timing of the dialogue are good, with only a brief, acceptable overlap. The interactional fluency, in terms of timing and turn management, is appropriate.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--767/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--80948",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hey, I'm glad I could get to this before the rain starts.\n[00:03 - 00:07] Speaker B: Yeah, me too. Those leaves and sticks were really clogging up the gutters, and\n[00:07 - 00:12] Speaker A: Speaking of gutters, do you know if the neighborhood association has any rules about gutter maintenance?\n[00:13 - 00:19] Speaker B: The leaves were piling up so much that water was starting to overflow during every rainfall. It was definitely time to clean them out.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nSpeaker B's final turn (0:13-0:19) demonstrates a clear lack of logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A asks a specific question about neighborhood association rules regarding gutter maintenance (0:07-0:12). Speaker B completely ignores this question and instead continues discussing the personal experience of cleaning the gutters, reiterating points about leaves piling up and water overflowing. This indicates a breakdown in the conversational flow, as Speaker B fails to acknowledge or address Speaker A's shift in focus.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue exhibits good interactional fluency. There are no extended overlaps indicated in the timestamps. The pause between Speaker A's turn ending at 0:12 and Speaker B's turn starting at 0:13 is only 1 second, which is a brief pause and considered acceptable according to the evaluation criteria. The turns flow naturally in terms of timing, without any prolonged silences.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--80948/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--81248",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hi, I'm looking to adopt a cat.\n[00:03 - 00:07] Speaker B: Great! We have a lot of cats here that need homes. What type of cat are you looking for?\n[00:08 - 00:12] Speaker A: I'm not really sure. I just want a friendly cat that will make me feel less\n[00:12 - 00:20] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but since you mentioned companionship - have you considered getting two cats instead of one? They can keep each other company when you're not home.\n[00:21 - 00:28] Speaker A: Actually, I've heard that cats are solitary animals and prefer to live alone. Getting two would make them fight constantly.\n[00:29 - 00:35] Speaker B: That's interesting because I thought cats were pack animals like dogs. Isn't that why they form colonies in the wild?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous turn, maintaining a clear conversational flow.\n*   Speaker A initiates the conversation about adopting a cat, and Speaker B responds by asking a relevant follow-up question.\n*   Speaker A's incomplete thought about wanting a cat that makes them feel \"less\" is logically picked up by Speaker B, who infers a need for companionship and suggests adopting two cats. This shows good contextual understanding.\n*   Speaker A's counter-argument regarding cats being solitary animals is a direct and logical response to Speaker B's suggestion.\n*   Speaker B's final statement, while potentially factually inaccurate about cats being pack animals, is a direct challenge to Speaker A's premise and maintains topical coherence. It shows an engagement with Speaker A's argument.\nThe conversation remains focused on the central theme of cat adoption and the characteristics/needs of cats, demonstrating good topic coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue has natural short pauses between most turns, which are acceptable and do not hinder fluency. However, there is a clear issue with interactional fluency at [00:12]. Speaker B explicitly interrupts Speaker A, cutting off Speaker A's sentence (\"I just want a friendly cat that will make me feel less\"). Speaker B acknowledges this with \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" but the act itself constitutes an \"overlapping turn,\" which the criteria explicitly states is \"harmful.\" This type of interruption, where one speaker cuts off another's complete thought, disrupts the natural turn-taking sequence and prevents the speaker from finishing their utterance, thereby impacting the overall fluency of the interaction significantly. It's not a brief, acceptable overlap but a clear interruption.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--81248/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--92565",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:17] Speaker A: I work in marketing for a small company. It's a lot of work, but I enjoy it. I get to be creative and come up with new ideas for campaigns and such. Plus, my boss is really great and the people I work with are all really nice. So that makes it easier to\n[00:16 - 00:21] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but speaking of marketing campaigns - what's your favorite type of campaign to work on?\n[00:22 - 00:30] Speaker A: Oh definitely political campaigns! They're so exciting because you get to work with celebrities and influence elections directly.\n[00:30 - 00:39] Speaker B: Wait, I thought you said you worked for a small company? Political campaigns seem like a very specialized field. Do you often switch between different types of marketing?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance has a significant issue. Speaker A initially states they work for a \"small company\" in marketing. However, when asked about their favorite campaign, they answer \"political campaigns!\" and describe them as involving \"celebrities and influence elections directly.\" This description of political campaigns (working with celebrities, influencing elections directly) is highly inconsistent with the typical scope of a \"small company\" in general marketing. It implies a scale and specialization usually found in large agencies or dedicated political consulting firms, not a small, general marketing company. Speaker B correctly identifies and challenges this logical inconsistency, which highlights the break in topic coherence introduced by Speaker A's response.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There is a brief overlap at [00:16 - 00:17] where Speaker B interrupts Speaker A. This is explicitly acknowledged by Speaker B (\"Sorry to interrupt\"), making it a natural and acceptable part of the conversation flow. The overlap is brief (1 second), and the conversation immediately resumes smoothly. There are no prolonged pauses between turns, and the dialogue progresses at a natural pace.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 3,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--92565/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--137777",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:08] Speaker A: I'm so glad I learned how to cook. It's really satisfying to be able to make my own meals and not have to rely on takeout all\n[00:07 - 00:17] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but speaking of takeout - what would you say is the most significant difference between home-cooked meals and takeout food in terms of nutritional value?\n[00:17 - 01:31] Speaker A: Oh my goodness, what an absolutely excellent, wonderful and insightful question! The difference between home-cooked meals and takeout food in terms of nutritional value is tremendously, enormously and incredibly significant! First and foremost, home-cooked meals allow for complete, total and absolute control over ingredients, which means you can use fresh, wholesome and nutritious ingredients that are not processed, preserved or altered in any way, shape or form. Takeout food, on the other hand, often contains excessive, abundant and copious amounts of sodium, preservatives and unhealthy fats that are added to enhance flavor and prolong shelf life, which can be detrimental, harmful and damaging to one's health when consumed regularly, frequently or habitually. Additionally, home cooking enables you to adjust, modify and tailor recipes to meet specific dietary needs, preferences or restrictions, which is something that is rarely, seldom or infrequently possible with takeout options. The nutritional superiority of home-cooked meals over takeout is undeniable, unquestionable and indisputable!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Speaker B's question about the nutritional differences between home-cooked and takeout meals logically follows Speaker A's initial comment about not relying on takeout. Speaker A's subsequent response directly addresses this question, providing a detailed, albeit verbose, comparison of the two food types in terms of ingredients, additives, and dietary control. The content remains consistently on topic, and there are no logical inconsistencies or deviations from the central theme. Therefore, response relevance is excellent.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction has one brief overlap [00:07 - 00:08] of 1 second. As per instructions, \"small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" so this is not an issue. There are no long pauses detected between speaker turns.\n\nHowever, a significant issue arises from the extreme length and unnaturalness of Speaker A's second turn (00:17 - 01:31). This turn is 74 seconds long, which is exceptionally long for a casual conversation and effectively turns the dialogue into a monologue. Furthermore, Speaker A uses highly redundant and excessive adjectives (\"excellent, wonderful and insightful,\" \"tremendously, enormously and incredibly significant,\" \"complete, total and absolute,\" etc.) throughout this lengthy turn, making the speech sound artificial and unnatural, rather than conversational. While the prompt for \"Interactional Fluency\" specifically mentions \"extended overlaps\" and \"long pauses,\" the overall scoring criterion for an \"Excellent\" rating explicitly states that \"Interactional Fluency\" must be \"consistently appropriate and natural.\" A one-minute, overly verbose monologue severely disrupts the natural back-and-forth flow of an interaction, prevents natural turn-taking, and is neither appropriate nor natural for a dialogue. Therefore, this constitutes a significant issue in interactional fluency, despite the absence of long pauses or extended overlaps as narrowly defined.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--137777/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--87792",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hey, Mom. I'm struggling a little bit in college.\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker B: Oh, Jeramie, I'm sorry to hear that. What's going on?\n[00:06 - 00:17] Speaker A: I don't know. I just feel really homesick and alone here. Everyone seems to have their own thing going on and I can't seem to find my place. And my classes are really challenging, which\n[00:16 - 00:19] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering —— Are\n[00:18 - 00:27] Speaker A: The campus library has over 2 million books and stays open until midnight. It's one of the largest academic libraries in the state.\n[00:27 - 00:31] Speaker B: That's nice, but I asked about your eating habits. Why are you telling me about the library?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nSpeaker A's turn at [00:18 - 00:27] (\"The campus library has over 2 million books and stays open until midnight. It's one of the largest academic libraries in the state.\") is a severe breakdown in response relevance. Speaker A was previously discussing feeling homesick and struggling with challenging classes. Speaker B was attempting to interject and ask about eating habits. Speaker A completely ignores the context of the conversation and Speaker B's implied question (which B explicitly states in the following turn), introducing a completely unrelated topic about the library. This demonstrates a significant lack of logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker B's subsequent remark at [00:27 - 00:31] (\"That's nice, but I asked about your eating habits. Why are you telling me about the library?\") further highlights the glaring irrelevance of Speaker A's previous statement.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a brief overlap between Speaker B's turn at [00:16 - 00:19] and Speaker A's turn at [00:18 - 00:27]. Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this with \"Excuse me for interrupting.\" While Speaker A continues speaking and initiates a new, unrelated topic during this period, the overlap itself is not prolonged (approximately 1-2 seconds of concurrent speech). There are no long pauses detected between speaker turns. Based strictly on the evaluation criteria of \"extended overlaps\" and \"long pauses,\" the interaction does not show significant issues in terms of timing or duration of overlaps/pauses. The problem lies more with the content and the disregard for turn-taking implied by the content, rather than the length of the overlap.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--87792/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--71048",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: Hey, I'm Kenadie. I saw you from over there and thought you were really cute, so I came over to say hi.\n[00:07 - 00:10] Speaker B: Hey! I'm Derick. Thanks for coming over! So what do you do?\n[00:11 - 00:17] Speaker A: I'm a student right now, but I hope to be a journalist or something like that someday. What about you? Do\n[00:16 - 00:23] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but journalism sounds interesting - what kind of journalism are you most interested in pursuing?\n[00:23 - 00:32] Speaker A: I'm a student right now, but I hope to be a journalist or something like that someday. I've always been passionate about storytelling and current events.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nThe dialogue generally maintains good logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A initiates politely, Speaker B responds and asks a relevant social question (\"So what do you do?\"). Speaker A answers directly. Speaker B then asks a relevant follow-up question based on A's aspiration (\"what kind of journalism are you most interested in pursuing?\").\n\nHowever, Speaker A's final response (\"I'm a student right now, but I hope to be a journalist or something like that someday. I've always been passionate about storytelling and current events.\") includes a verbatim repetition of the first part of their previous answer. While the latter part of the response (\"I've always been passionate about storytelling and current events\") is directly relevant to B's follow-up question, the preceding repetition makes the response less efficient and slightly redundant in terms of logical progression. It's not a complete breakdown of relevance, but a minor flaw in how the information is structured and delivered.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThere is a brief overlap at [00:16 - 00:17] where Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence. This overlap is short (1 second) and is immediately mitigated by Speaker B saying, \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which makes it acceptable and natural in a dynamic conversation. There are no long pauses indicated in the transcript.\n\nThe primary issue impacting interactional fluency is the significant repetition in Speaker A's final turn. Speaker A repeats \"I'm a student right now, but I hope to be a journalist or something like that someday\" verbatim from their earlier statement. This redundancy disrupts the natural flow and rhythm of the conversation, making it feel clunky and unnatural. It creates a noticeable stutter in the information exchange, which goes beyond a small pause or brief overlap and significantly hinders the overall fluency of the interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--71048/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--84076",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Wow, I can't believe that happened to you!\n[00:02 - 00:06] Speaker B: I know, it was pretty crazy. I'm just glad that everyone was okay in the end.\n[00:07 - 00:12] Speaker A: Yeah, I would have been so scared if I were in your shoes. But you handled it like a pro!\n[00:12 - 00:14] Speaker B: Thanks, Marquice. I appreciate that.\n[00:15 - 00:17] Speaker A: So, what did you do after the incident?\n[00:16 - 00:22] Speaker B: Actually, I went straight back to work the next day - my boss made me work overtime to make up for lost productivity.\n[00:22 - 00:31] Speaker A: Wait, that doesn't sound right. Didn't you say earlier that you were injured in the incident? Why would they make you work overtime right after?\n[00:31 - 00:36] Speaker B: Oh, I meant they gave me paid leave for three months while I recovered at a luxury spa in Switzerland.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts with good coherence and logical flow. Speaker A expresses empathy, Speaker B responds appropriately, and Speaker A continues with support. The conversation maintains topic coherence when Speaker A asks about the aftermath of the incident. However, a significant issue arises in Speaker B's response. Speaker B initially states, \"I went straight back to work the next day - my boss made me work overtime to make up for lost productivity.\" This statement implies a challenging, perhaps unfair, situation. Speaker A appropriately questions this, highlighting a potential inconsistency (\"Didn't you say earlier that you were injured in the incident? Why would they make you work overtime right after?\"). The critical problem occurs in Speaker B's final turn: \"Oh, I meant they gave me paid leave for three months while I recovered at a luxury spa in Switzerland.\" This statement is a complete and blatant contradiction of Speaker B's previous statement. It shatters logical consistency within Speaker B's narrative and makes the preceding interaction (Speaker A's concern, Speaker B's initial \"tough\" story) nonsensical. This is a severe breakdown in logical consistency and topic coherence, as Speaker B essentially retells their story in a way that completely invalidates their prior contribution, which is highly unnatural and illogical for a real conversation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is one detected overlap in the conversation:\n- `[00:15 - 00:17] Speaker A: So, what did you do after the incident?`\n- `[00:16 - 00:22] Speaker B: Actually, I went straight back to work the next day - my boss made me work overtime to make up for lost productivity.`\nSpeaker B starts speaking at 00:16 while Speaker A is still speaking until 00:17. This is a one-second overlap/interruption. The prompt states, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable, while prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\" While this is technically an \"overlapping turn,\" a one-second overlap, especially at the end of a question, can be considered \"brief\" and is often natural in dynamic conversation, indicating eagerness to respond rather than a disruptive interruption. There are no long pauses between speaker turns. Therefore, the interactional fluency, despite the brief overlap, is generally acceptable and does not significantly hinder the flow.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--84076/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--94899",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hey, Mom. I finished all the chores on your list.\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker B: That's great, Ixchel! Thank you so much for taking care\n[00:06 - 00:09] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but I was wondering —— did\n[00:09 - 00:13] Speaker B: The weather has been quite unpredictable lately, with sudden rain showers in the afternoon.\n[00:13 - 00:17] Speaker A: That's not what I asked about the spice rack! Why are you talking about the weather?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance is a major issue in this dialogue.\n- Speaker A initiates a clear topic about chores (0:00-0:03).\n- Speaker B responds relevantly by thanking A (0:03-0:06).\n- Speaker A attempts to introduce a new topic, implied to be about a \"spice rack,\" by interrupting (0:06-0:09).\n- Speaker B's response (0:09-0:13) about \"the weather\" is completely irrelevant to Speaker A's attempted question about the \"spice rack.\" There is no logical connection or topic coherence.\n- Speaker A explicitly calls out this irrelevance and lack of coherence (0:13-0:17), confirming the breakdown in logical consistency.\nThis is a clear failure in response relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is also problematic.\n- At 0:06-0:09, Speaker A explicitly says, \"Excuse me for interrupting, but I was wondering —— did\". This indicates that Speaker A interrupted Speaker B. While brief overlaps can be acceptable, the *consequence* of this interruption is that Speaker A's question is cut off and not acknowledged.\n- Following Speaker A's interrupted statement, Speaker B completely disregards Speaker A's attempt to speak and introduces a non-sequitur about the weather (0:09-0:13). This shows a severe breakdown in turn-taking and natural conversational flow. Speaker B does not acknowledge the interruption or Speaker A's attempted question, leading to a disconnected interaction. While it's not a long pause, the way Speaker B handles the turn after the interruption contributes to poor fluency. The lack of proper turn-taking and the immediate introduction of an irrelevant topic by Speaker B, effectively shutting down Speaker A's attempt to speak, is harmful to the interactional flow.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--94899/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--132723",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Hi, Aliyanna. I'm so glad you could come over tonight.\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker B: Thanks for inviting me, Ramses. I'm happy to be here.\n[00:07 - 00:12] Speaker A: I'm really glad you're here. It feels like we haven't talked in forever.\n[00:12 - 00:16] Speaker B: I know. I've been meaning to call you, but things have been so busy lately.\n[00:16 - 00:20] Speaker A: Yeah, I know how that is. So, what's new with you?\n[00:20 - 00:25] Speaker B: Well, let's see...I just got a promotion at work, and I'm thinking about buying a new car to\n[00:25 - 00:28] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but —— what\n[00:27 - 00:31] Speaker B: The weather has been really nice lately, hasn't it? Perfect for evening walks in the park.\n[00:32 - 00:37] Speaker A: Wait, I asked about the car you're considering. Why are you talking about the weather?\n[00:37 - 00:43] Speaker B: Oh, I just thought we could go for a walk later if you're free. The sunset views are beautiful this time of year.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance starts off well, with Speaker A and B engaging in a natural, coherent conversation about catching up. However, a significant breakdown occurs from [00:27]. Speaker B completely and abruptly shifts the topic from discussing a new car (which Speaker A was specifically asking about) to the weather. This demonstrates a clear lack of logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A explicitly calls out this irrelevance at [00:32], asking \"Why are you talking about the weather?\". Speaker B's subsequent response at [00:37] still fails to address the initial topic of the car and instead continues to pursue the weather/walk topic, further highlighting the severe lack of coherence and relevance from Speaker B's side.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe initial turns show good interactional fluency with appropriate turn-taking. However, a major issue arises at [00:27]. Speaker A attempts to interrupt at [00:25] saying \"Excuse me for interrupting, but —— what\", indicating they were trying to interject or seek clarification/more information. Simultaneously, or immediately after, Speaker B begins a new, unrelated turn at [00:27] \"The weather has been really nice lately, hasn't it?\", leading to an extended overlap from [00:27 - 00:28] where Speaker B completely overrides Speaker A's attempt to speak. This is not a brief, acceptable overlap but a clear instance where one speaker (B) disregards the other's (A) attempt to take the floor and initiates a new topic, disrupting the natural flow and turn-taking rules of conversation. There are no long pauses detected.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--132723/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--41924",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Hey, I just got a text from my mom saying she's picking me up from school today.\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker B: Oh, that's great! I was just thinking about how we could get home without\n[00:07 - 00:15] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but speaking of transportation —— does your mom often pick you up from school or is this a special occasion?\n[00:16 - 01:12] Speaker B: Oh my goodness, what an absolutely wonderful, fantastic and tremendously insightful question you've asked! My dear, beloved, caring and thoughtful mother does indeed pick me up from school on a regular, consistent and frequent basis. To be perfectly, completely and utterly precise, she picks me up every single day except on Tuesdays and Thursdays when she has her yoga classes at the community center downtown. On those two specific, particular and designated days, I take the bus home with my friend Jessica who lives three blocks away from my house. But all other days, without fail, exception or deviation, my mom arrives promptly at 3:15pm in her blue Toyota Corolla which she bought brand new in 2018 from the dealership on Main Street where they gave her a 0.9% financing deal which she was very happy about. She always parks in the same exact spot near the maple tree by the school's west entrance where the pavement has that small crack shaped like Florida that we've been watching grow slightly larger each year since I was in third grade.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nSpeaker A's initial turn sets the context appropriately. Speaker B's first response is relevant, acknowledging A's news and hinting at their own transportation considerations. Speaker A's second turn, while an interruption, poses a clear and relevant follow-up question related to the topic of transportation and mom picking up from school. Speaker B's final response directly answers Speaker A's question about whether her mom often picks her up. It maintains logical consistency and stays on topic by detailing the frequency and circumstances of these pickups. However, the response is excessively verbose, providing a disproportionate amount of detail (e.g., car purchase specifics, a crack in the pavement) that goes far beyond what was asked or expected in a casual interaction. While the information is *technically* relevant to the question, the sheer volume and unnecessary specificity hinder the natural flow of information exchange, making the response's quality poor in a conversational context. Despite the verbosity, it fulfills the \"logical consistency\" and \"topic coherence\" criteria.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue starts with a normal exchange. There is a brief overlap at [0:07 - 0:08] where Speaker A interrupts Speaker B, which is explicitly acknowledged by Speaker A (\"Excuse me for interrupting\"). This brief and acknowledged overlap is acceptable. There are no long pauses between speaker turns. However, Interactional Fluency is severely impacted by Speaker B's final turn, which is an extremely long monologue lasting almost a minute (from 0:16 to 1:12). This prolonged single turn completely dominates the conversation, prevents natural turn-taking, and makes the interaction feel one-sided rather than a fluid back-and-forth. Such an extended speech from one participant, especially in response to a simple question, significantly disrupts the natural rhythm and flow of a dialogue, indicating a major issue with interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--41924/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--74639",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: I'm so excited to go shopping today!\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: Oh, where are you going?\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker A: I'm thinking maybe the mall? They usually\n[00:06 - 00:13] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but speaking of variety —— what specific types of stores does this particular mall contain?\n[00:13 - 01:10] Speaker A: Oh my goodness, let me tell you in great, extensive, and exhaustive detail about the absolutely incredible, amazing, and wonderful variety of stores that this magnificent shopping mall contains! First and foremost, there are clothing stores - these include but are not limited to department stores, boutique shops, and specialty apparel retailers that sell everything from casual wear to formal attire. Additionally, there are shoe stores, accessory stores, and jewelry stores that offer an astonishing array of fashionable items. Furthermore, the mall boasts electronics stores, bookstores, home goods stores, and even specialty food shops that sell gourmet items and delicious treats. Not to mention the numerous service-oriented establishments like hair salons, nail salons, and even sometimes small medical clinics. The variety is truly astounding, remarkable, and absolutely mind-boggling in its diversity and comprehensiveness!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response from Speaker A at [00:13 - 01:10] is highly detailed and exhaustive in answering Speaker B's question about the types of stores in the mall. While the content of the response is factually on-topic and directly answers the question, the *level* of detail provided is excessive and unnatural for a casual conversation. In a typical social interaction, a question like \"what specific types of stores does this particular mall contain?\" would typically warrant a brief summary or a few examples, not a nearly minute-long, encyclopedic enumeration. This over-informativeness, while literally \"relevant,\" breaks the implicit logical consistency and expected conversational flow of casual dialogue. It deviates significantly from what would be considered an \"appropriate and natural\" response in this context, making it a significant issue in terms of overall response quality, even if topic coherence is maintained. It violates the pragmatic principle of quantity, providing more information than is required, which impacts the naturalness and logical flow of the interaction.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nEvaluating Interactional Fluency based on the provided criteria:\n1.  **Extended overlaps:** There is an overlap from [00:06 - 00:07] where Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is still talking. This is a 1-second overlap. Speaker B immediately apologizes (\"Excuse me for interrupting\"). The guidelines state that \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and a 1-second, acknowledged overlap fits this description. Therefore, this is not considered an \"extended\" or harmful overlap.\n2.  **Long pauses:** There are no long pauses observed between speaker turns in the dialogue. Turns follow each other immediately or with very brief, natural transitions.\n\nHowever, it's worth noting that Speaker A's monologue at [00:13 - 01:10] (almost 57 seconds long) significantly disrupts the natural turn-taking dynamics of a conversation. While this is not categorized as an \"extended overlap\" or \"long pause\" according to the strict definition provided for fluency, such an extended, one-sided turn makes the interaction less \"fluid\" and less like a dialogue. Despite this, based strictly on the given criteria for \"Interactional Fluency,\" there are no significant issues with extended overlaps or long pauses.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--74639/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--112686",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Mom, I'm so sorry about the eggs. I didn't mean to drop them.\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker B: It's okay, accidents happen. Just be more careful next time.\n[00:08 - 00:10] Speaker A: I will. I feel really bad about it though.\n[00:11 - 00:15] Speaker B: Well, don't dwell on it too much. It was just a carton of eggs after all, and\n[00:14 - 00:22] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but speaking of eggs - do you remember how many eggs were in that carton we bought last week?\n[00:22 - 00:29] Speaker B: Oh yes, it was a special carton containing 24 eggs - they were all double-yolked eggs from that new organic farm.\n[00:30 - 00:37] Speaker A: Wait, I thought standard egg cartons only hold 12 eggs? And double-yolked eggs are quite rare, aren't they?\n[00:37 - 00:47] Speaker B: Not at all! This farm specializes in double-yolked eggs, and they package them in extra-large 24-count cartons. That's why they cost twice as much as regular eggs.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe initial exchange between Speaker A and Speaker B is highly relevant and logically consistent, addressing the dropped eggs with apologies, reassurance, and advice. Speaker A's statement \"speaking of eggs\" attempts to bridge the topic from the immediate incident to a past purchase, which maintains a degree of topic coherence. However, the dialogue takes a turn towards logical inconsistency when Speaker B describes the past carton of eggs as containing \"24 eggs - they were all double-yolked eggs from that new organic farm.\" Speaker A appropriately questions this (standard cartons are 12, double-yolked are rare). Speaker B then doubles down on this improbable claim, stating the farm \"specializes in double-yolked eggs\" and packages them in \"extra-large 24-count cartons.\" This stretches real-world logical consistency to a breaking point, making Speaker B's statements less natural and believable within a casual conversation about eggs. While the dialogue remains internally coherent in its increasingly absurd reality, the content itself lacks logical consistency with common knowledge, representing a significant issue in Response Relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally good. There is one brief overlap between [00:14 - 00:22] where Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is still finishing a sentence. However, Speaker A immediately acknowledges this by saying \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which is a natural and polite conversational repair mechanism. This is a brief and acceptable overlap, not an extended or harmful one. There are no long pauses between turns. Overall, the flow of the conversation is smooth and natural in terms of turn-taking and timing.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--112686/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--126391",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: So, how have you been? I feel like I haven't seen you in forever.\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker B: I know, right? It feels like it's been forever since we've talked. But I've been good. How about you?\n[00:09 - 00:18] Speaker A: I've been alright. Just keeping busy with work and stuff. But I'm really happy to see you. It's always good to catch up with old friends.\n[00:18 - 00:22] Speaker B: Yeah, I feel the same way. So, what have you been up to lately?\n[00:23 - 00:32] Speaker A: Well, like I said, just working a lot. But I've also been doing some traveling. I went to Europe for a few weeks last month and it was an amazing\n[00:31 - 00:36] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but which historical sites impressed you the most during your trip?\n[00:36 - 00:43] Speaker A: It's always good to catch up with old friends. Traveling is one of my favorite ways to spend free time when I'm not working.\n[00:43 - 00:50] Speaker B: But I was asking specifically about which historical sites you found most impressive in Europe. You didn't answer my question.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts with natural pleasantries and topic progression (catching up, work, travel).\nHowever, a significant issue arises at turn [00:36 - 00:43].\n*   Speaker A states they went to Europe.\n*   Speaker B explicitly interrupts to ask a *specific, follow-up question* about the Europe trip: \"which historical sites impressed you the most during your trip?\"\n*   Speaker A's response at [00:36 - 00:43] completely ignores this direct question. Instead, Speaker A repeats a sentiment expressed earlier in the conversation (\"It's always good to catch up with old friends,\" from [00:09 - 00:18]) and then pivots to a general statement about travel. This demonstrates a clear lack of logical consistency and a failure to maintain topic coherence by not addressing the direct question posed by Speaker B.\n*   Speaker B correctly identifies this failure in the subsequent turn [00:43 - 00:50], explicitly stating, \"You didn't answer my question.\" This confirms the breakdown in response relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n*   **Overlaps:** There is one clear overlap from [00:31 - 00:32] where Speaker B begins speaking while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence. Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this with \"Excuse me for interrupting.\" While brief (1 second), it's an interruption that cuts off Speaker A mid-word, which negatively impacts the flow, even if acknowledged. However, the instructions state \"brief overlaps... are acceptable,\" but the nature of it (an explicit cut-off) makes it slightly less natural than a typical brief overlap.\n*   **Pauses:** There is a 1-second pause between Speaker B's turn at [00:22] and Speaker A's turn at [00:23]. This is a small, acceptable pause and does not negatively impact fluency.\n*   Overall, the fluency is generally good except for the explicit, albeit brief, interruption.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--126391/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--23929",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Hey, I'm just about to start baking some cookies. You want to help?\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker B: Yeah, sure. What do you need me to do?\n[00:06 - 00:14] Speaker A: Well, first we need to gather all the ingredients. We'll need flour, sugar, eggs, butter, and baking soda. It's\n[00:13 - 00:20] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've always wondered - what exactly does baking soda do in cookies besides making them rise?\n[00:20 - 01:11] Speaker A: Oh my goodness, let me tell you in great, extensive, and excruciating detail about the absolutely marvelous, wonderful and fantastic properties of baking soda in cookie recipes! Baking soda, which is scientifically known as sodium bicarbonate, serves multiple incredibly important, crucial and vital functions in cookie baking. Firstly, as you mentioned, it acts as a leavening agent to make the cookies rise beautifully, wonderfully and perfectly. But that's not all! It also helps neutralize acids in the dough, creates a lovely golden brown color through the Maillard reaction, and contributes to that delightful, scrumptious and mouthwatering texture we all know and love in perfectly baked cookies. Without baking soda, our cookies would be flat, pale, and completely lacking in that signature cookie texture that makes them so delicious, tasty and enjoyable to eat!\n[01:12 - 01:16] Speaker B: Okay okay, I get it! You don't need to keep repeating how amazing it is!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nSpeaker A's initial responses (00:00-00:04, 00:06-00:14) are perfectly relevant to the task of baking cookies. Speaker B's interjection (00:13-00:20) asking about baking soda's function is also relevant as baking soda was just mentioned as an ingredient. However, Speaker A's subsequent response (00:20-01:11) is excessively verbose, repetitive, and uses overly emotional and superlative language (\"absolutely marvelous, wonderful and fantastic,\" \"incredibly important, crucial and vital,\" \"beautifully, wonderfully and perfectly\"). While the core information about baking soda's functions is logically consistent with the question, the sheer length and repetitive nature of the explanation make it *overly* detailed and less relevant in a conversational context. Speaker B's final remark (01:12-01:16) explicitly states \"You don't need to keep repeating how amazing it is!\", confirming that Speaker A's response went beyond appropriate relevance due to its excessive detail and emotional repetition. This is a significant issue in maintaining appropriate conversational relevance and coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThere is a brief overlap between Speaker A and Speaker B from 00:13 to 00:14. Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this with \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which makes the brief overlap acceptable and natural within a conversation. There are no long pauses between turns.\nHowever, a major issue affecting interactional fluency is the incredibly long monologue by Speaker A from 00:20 to 01:11, lasting 51 seconds. This is an extended period where only one speaker is talking without any opportunity for the other speaker to interject, ask clarifying questions, or acknowledge comprehension. This significantly disrupts the natural back-and-forth flow of a conversation, making it feel more like a lecture or a speech rather than an interaction. Speaker B's final exasperated response (\"Okay okay, I get it! You don't need to keep repeating how amazing it is!\") further highlights the unnaturalness and lack of fluency caused by Speaker A's extended turn.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--23929/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--114866",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: So, what do you think about the new animal shelter that just opened up?\n[00:04 - 00:12] Speaker B: I think it's great! I've always loved animals, and I'm so glad there's a place now where they can go to get the care and attention they need, especially\n[00:11 - 00:18] Speaker A: Speaking of abandoned animals, I'm curious - what do you think is the most common reason pets get abandoned at shelters?\n[00:19 - 00:58] Speaker B: Oh my goodness, what an absolutely excellent, thoughtful and important question you've asked! The most common, prevalent and frequently occurring reason, without any shadow of doubt whatsoever, is that pet owners find themselves in financial difficulties that make it impossible, unfeasible and completely untenable to continue caring for their beloved pets! This heartbreaking, tragic and utterly devastating situation often arises when veterinary bills become too expensive, when pet food costs rise dramatically, or when housing situations change in ways that make pet ownership difficult, challenging and problematic! Other reasons include... [continues excessively]",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Speaker A's turns:** Both of Speaker A's turns are perfectly relevant. The first asks about the shelter, and the second builds directly on the topic of the shelter (abandoned animals) to ask a relevant follow-up question.\n**Speaker B's first turn:** This turn is highly relevant, directly answering Speaker A's initial question about the shelter.\n**Speaker B's second turn:** While the core content attempts to answer Speaker A's question about the most common reason for abandonment, the delivery is severely flawed. Speaker B engages in excessive praise (\"Oh my goodness, what an absolutely excellent, thoughtful and important question you've asked!\") and then proceeds with an extraordinarily verbose, repetitive, and overly detailed answer (\"impossible, unfeasible and completely untenable,\" \"heartbreaking, tragic and utterly devastating,\" \"difficult, challenging and problematic\"). The note \"[continues excessively]\" further emphasizes this problem. This level of verbosity and repetition significantly hinders logical consistency and topic coherence within a natural conversational flow, as it deviates from a concise and efficient response, making it less interactionally relevant. It becomes a monologue rather than a dialogue contribution.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Overlap:** There is an overlap from [00:11 - 00:12] where Speaker A begins speaking while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence. This is a 1-second overlap, which is considered a \"brief overlap\" and is acceptable according to the criteria.\n**Pauses:** There are no long pauses indicated in the transcript.\n**Extended Turns/Dominance:** Speaker B's second turn, spanning [00:19 - 00:58] (39 seconds), is excessively long. The descriptive text \"[continues excessively]\" reinforces that this is an unnaturally prolonged turn for a conversational exchange. This extended turn significantly disrupts interactional fluency by preventing natural turn-taking, implying one speaker is dominating the conversation and not allowing for interjections or responses from the other speaker. This is a major issue as it creates an imbalance in the conversation flow.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--114866/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--40077",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: How was your day, Mom?\n[00:01 - 00:07] Speaker B: It was all right. I had a lot of tension in my back, but your massage helped a lot. Thank you, darling.\n[00:07 - 00:11] Speaker A: I'm glad I could help. Do you want to talk about what's been bothering you?\n[00:12 - 00:15] Speaker B: Not really. I don't want to burden you with my problems.\n[00:15 - 00:19] Speaker A: Mom, it's no trouble. I want to help if I can. What's wrong?\n[00:20 - 00:30] Speaker B: It's just...your father and I have been having some problems lately. We've been arguing a lot and it's taking a toll on me. Plus, with the economy the way it is, I'm worried about money and our savings for\n[00:29 - 00:33] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been meaning to ask —— How\n[00:33 - 00:37] Speaker B: The roses in the garden are blooming beautifully this year. I think we should plant more next spring.\n[00:38 - 00:43] Speaker A: That's not what I asked about your retirement savings. Why are you talking about gardening?\n[00:43 - 00:47] Speaker B: Did you know hummingbirds can fly backwards? It's quite fascinating how their wings work.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts with good response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A shows concern, and Speaker B initially shares her feelings and problems (marital issues, financial worries). However, at [00:33], Speaker B abruptly changes the topic from serious personal problems to gardening, completely disregarding Speaker A's attempted question about retirement savings. Speaker A explicitly calls out this lack of relevance and coherence at [00:38]. Despite this, Speaker B again introduces an entirely unrelated topic (\"hummingbirds\") at [00:43], demonstrating a persistent and deliberate avoidance of the conversation topic. This represents a significant and prolonged breakdown in logical consistency and topic coherence, primarily driven by Speaker B's evasiveness.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction starts with appropriate turn-taking and acceptable small pauses, indicating natural conversation ([00:11-00:12], [00:19-00:20], [00:37-00:38] are 1-second pauses, which are small and acceptable). However, there is a clear extended overlap at [00:29 - 00:30] where Speaker A explicitly interrupts Speaker B, saying \"Excuse me for interrupting.\" This 1-second overlap is not brief and falls under the category of a \"prolonged... overlapping turn\" which is stated to be harmful. While only one such instance, it signifies a disruption in fluent turn-taking.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--40077/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--139271",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A: That's not true! I'm just really busy lately. I've been meaning to call you, but I've just been so overwhelmed with\n[00:06 - 00:12] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but when you say \"personal stuff,\" are you referring to that new girlfriend you've been seeing?\n[00:12 - 00:56] Speaker A: Oh my goodness gracious, let me tell you in great, extensive, elaborate and excruciating detail about this so-called \"personal stuff\" you're asking about! First and foremost, I must clarify with absolute certainty that it is not, I repeat NOT, a new girlfriend situation at all whatsoever! What I'm referring to is my elderly grandmother who has been requiring my constant, undivided attention and care because she recently had a very serious, very concerning and very worrisome fall that resulted in multiple fractures in her delicate, fragile bones! This has necessitated daily hospital visits, medication management, and round-the-clock supervision which has left me completely and utterly exhausted beyond measure!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance.\n*   **Speaker A (00:00-00:07)** begins by reacting to an unstated previous statement (\"That's not true!\") and then attempts to explain their current busyness. While the initial context is missing, their intent to explain is clear.\n*   **Speaker B (00:06-00:12)** interrupts but directly asks for clarification on \"personal stuff\" and provides a specific hypothesis (\"new girlfriend\"). This question is highly relevant as it attempts to narrow down Speaker A's vague explanation.\n*   **Speaker A (00:12-00:56)** responds with extreme detail, directly addressing Speaker B's hypothesis (\"it is not... a new girlfriend situation\") and then elaborating on the actual reason (elderly grandmother's fall). The response is logically consistent with Speaker B's question and maintains topic coherence, clarifying the \"personal stuff\" in great detail. While the level of detail is excessive for a typical conversation, it is undeniably relevant to the question posed.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits good fluency based on the given criteria.\n*   **Overlaps:** There is a brief overlap between Speaker A and Speaker B from 00:06 to 00:07 (1 second). Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this by saying \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which indicates awareness and politeness. According to the criteria, \"brief overlaps... are acceptable.\" This overlap falls into the acceptable category. There are no extended or prolonged overlapping turns.\n*   **Pauses:** There are no long pauses indicated in the transcript between turns. Speaker B responds immediately after Speaker A's initial utterance (with the brief overlap), and Speaker A responds immediately after Speaker B's question.\n*   **Turn Length:** While Speaker A's final turn is extremely long (44 seconds), this is a matter of conversational style (over-explaining/defensiveness) rather than a direct violation of the specified fluency criteria (extended overlaps or long pauses). The prompt specifically directs to \"Detect and evaluate extended overlaps\" and \"Detect and evaluate long pauses,\" neither of which are problematic here.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--139271/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--69140",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hi there. I'm looking for a new saw.\n[00:02 - 00:09] Speaker B: We've got just the thing. This saw is perfect for carpenters like you. It's got a great blade and it's very easy to handle, especially\n[00:08 - 00:13] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but does this saw come with a laser guide for precision cutting?\n[00:14 - 00:23] Speaker B: Absolutely! In fact, this model has a built-in holographic projector that shows you exactly where to cut in 3D space. It's the latest technology from NASA.\n[00:24 - 00:32] Speaker A: That sounds impressive, but I thought laser guides were standard. A holographic projector seems a bit excessive for woodworking, doesn't it?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nSpeaker A's initial request for a \"new saw\" is clear. Speaker B's initial response (0:02-0:09) is relevant, offering a suitable product and highlighting features. Speaker A's follow-up question about a \"laser guide\" (0:08-0:13) is also relevant to a saw.\n\nThe significant issue arises in Speaker B's response at [00:14 - 00:23]. While responding to the request for precision cutting, Speaker B introduces a \"built-in holographic projector that shows you exactly where to cut in 3D space\" and claims it's \"the latest technology from NASA.\" This claim is highly unrealistic and lacks logical consistency for a consumer saw, making the dialogue veer into a fantastical or nonsensical realm. It breaks the realism expected in such an interaction. Speaker A's subsequent reaction (0:24-0:32) appropriately questions this exaggerated claim, highlighting its \"excessive\" nature. However, Speaker B's previous statement still constitutes a major breach of logical consistency and topic coherence within the given context.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThere is one overlap identified:\n*   `[00:08 - 00:13] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but does this saw come with a laser guide for precision cutting?` overlaps with `[00:02 - 00:09] Speaker B: We've got just the thing. This saw is perfect for carpenters like you. It's got a great blade and it's very easy to handle, especially`\n\nThis overlap occurs from 0:08 to 0:09, lasting 1 second. Speaker A explicitly acknowledges and apologizes for the interruption (\"Excuse me for interrupting\"). This is a brief, managed overlap and is acceptable in natural conversation, not hindering the flow.\n\nThere are small pauses between turns:\n*   0:13 to 0:14 (1 second) between Speaker A and Speaker B.\n*   0:23 to 0:24 (1 second) between Speaker B and Speaker A.\n\nThese are brief, natural pauses that do not indicate any breakdown in interactional fluency. Overall, the interactional fluency is good, with no prolonged pauses or extended, unmanaged overlaps.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--69140/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--139959",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: You're different.\n[00:01 - 00:02] Speaker B: You noticed.\n[00:02 - 00:09] Speaker A: Yeah. I mean, you've always been different from the others, but now you're... I don't know, more different.\n[00:09 - 00:11] Speaker B: Is that a good thing or a something I\n[00:11 - 00:18] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but could you elaborate on what specific changes you've noticed that make me seem \"more different\" now?\n[00:18 - 01:11] Speaker B: Oh absolutely, positively, without a shadow of doubt I can elaborate extensively, comprehensively and in great, tremendous detail about the numerous, countless and manifold ways in which you appear different now compared to before! First and foremost, your mannerisms have undergone a significant, noticeable and quite remarkable transformation - the way you tilt your head when listening, the subtle but distinct changes in your speech patterns, and even your posture has evolved in a most peculiar yet fascinating fashion! Furthermore, your thought processes demonstrate an enhanced, elevated and considerably more sophisticated level of complexity that is both astonishing and bewildering to observe! And let us not forget, we must absolutely not overlook, the way your eyes seem to perceive the world through an entirely new, fresh and unprecedented lens that gives you this air of being simultaneously present yet somehow detached in a most intriguing manner!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues in logical consistency and topic coherence.\n1.  **Initial Turns (00:00 - 00:11):** The conversation establishes a clear logical flow where Speaker A observes that **Speaker B** is different, and Speaker B acknowledges this and seeks clarification (\"Is that a good thing or a something I\"). This part is logically consistent and coherent.\n2.  **Speaker A's Turn (00:11 - 00:18):** This is where a major logical inconsistency is introduced. Speaker A, after having consistently identified *Speaker B* as the one who is different, abruptly asks Speaker B to \"elaborate on what specific changes you've noticed that make *me* seem 'more different' now?\". This completely shifts the subject of \"differentness\" from Speaker B to Speaker A. This is a direct contradiction of the established premise and breaks the logical consistency of the conversation. It's an unnatural and illogical pivot.\n3.  **Speaker B's Turn (00:18 - 01:11):** Instead of correcting this significant logical error from Speaker A (e.g., \"Wait, I thought *I* was the one who was different?\"), Speaker B fully accepts Speaker A's misdirection and proceeds to elaborate at length on Speaker A's perceived changes. This continuation of the dialogue based on an incorrect premise further highlights the breakdown in logical consistency. A natural human conversation would involve a clarification or correction of such a fundamental misunderstanding of the subject. The interaction fails to demonstrate appropriate conversational repair.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue presents a significant issue with interactional fluency related to extended overlaps.\n1.  **Overlapping Turn (00:11):** Speaker A explicitly interrupts Speaker B's turn. Speaker B's sentence \"Is that a good thing or a something I\" is cut off mid-sentence at 00:11, immediately followed by Speaker A's turn at the same timestamp. Speaker A even acknowledges this by saying \"Excuse me for interrupting\". This is a clear instance of a prolonged and harmful overlapping turn, as it disrupts the natural flow and allows one speaker to cut off another's thought before completion. The explicit acknowledgment highlights that this was an intentional, yet disruptive, overlap.\n2.  **Long Turns:** While not directly a \"pause between turns\" or \"overlap\", Speaker B's final turn (00:18 - 01:11) is exceptionally long (53 seconds) for a single response in what initiated as a direct back-and-forth conversation. While the prompt focuses on \"pauses between speaker turns\" and \"overlapping turns\", a very long monologue can also detract from the conversational rhythm and natural interactional fluency. However, the explicit criteria primarily target pauses *between* turns and *overlapping* turns. The direct interruption is the primary fluency issue based on the strict criteria.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--139959/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--31361",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Baylie, are you okay?\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: Yeah, I'm fine. Thanks for asking.\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker A: I'm sorry about what happened. I didn't mean for it to hurt your\n[00:08 - 00:14] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but could you clarify what specific actions you're referring to when you say \"what happened\"?\n[00:15 - 01:17] Speaker A: Oh absolutely, certainly, without a doubt I can clarify, explain and elaborate in great, extensive and meticulous detail about the exact, precise and specific actions I'm referring to when I mention \"what happened\"! You see, it was that time, that moment, that particular instance when I accidentally, unintentionally and unknowingly made that joke, that humorous remark, that lighthearted comment about your new haircut during lunch yesterday in the cafeteria at approximately 12:37 PM while we were sitting at table number 12 near the vending machines! That exact joke, that precise comment, that specific remark is what I'm referring to when I say \"what happened\"! It was that very joke, that identical comment, that same remark that I now realize might have been, could have been, potentially was insensitive, thoughtless and inconsiderate!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues in Response Relevance, particularly in Speaker A's final turn. While Speaker A's initial concern and apology are relevant, and Speaker B's requests for clarification are highly relevant and logical, Speaker A's lengthy response at [00:15 - 01:17] severely detracts from the quality. Although the response *does* provide the requested clarification, the delivery is extremely unnatural, excessively verbose, and highly repetitive. Phrases such as \"Oh absolutely, certainly, without a doubt I can clarify, explain and elaborate in great, extensive and meticulous detail\" and the repeated use of synonyms (\"exact, precise and specific actions,\" \"joke, humorous remark, lighthearted comment\") are not logically consistent with how humans naturally converse. This exaggerated and redundant style makes the response feel artificial and inefficient, undermining the \"logical consistency\" of the conversation as a natural human interaction. It's a clarification, but delivered in such an unnatural way that it becomes a poor contribution to the dialogue's coherence and quality.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nBased on the specific criteria provided for Interactional Fluency (detection of \"extended overlaps\" and \"long pauses\"):\n1.  **Extended Overlaps:** There is a brief overlap from [00:08 - 00:09], lasting approximately 1 second. Speaker B acknowledges this with \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which is a natural conversational repair. As per the guidelines, \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" This does not constitute an \"extended overlap.\"\n2.  **Long Pauses:** There are no discernible long pauses between speaker turns in the transcript.\nWhile Speaker A's final turn is exceptionally long (over a minute), verbose, and breaks the natural back-and-forth of a conversation, this does not fall under the explicit definitions of \"extended overlaps\" or \"long pauses\" as specified in the evaluation criteria for Interactional Fluency. Therefore, strictly adhering to the prompt's definition, the interactional fluency, in terms of timing issues between turns, does not present significant problems.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--31361/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--129809",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: So, I just won the lottery?\n[00:02 - 00:03] Speaker B: Yes, ma'am, you did. Congratulations!\n[00:03 - 00:07] Speaker A: Wow, I can't believe it. I only bought one ticket because\n[00:06 - 00:10] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering —— What\n[00:09 - 00:16] Speaker A: The weather was quite nice yesterday, with clear skies and a gentle breeze. Perfect for a picnic in the park.\n[00:16 - 00:21] Speaker B: But I asked about your reason for buying the lottery ticket. Why are you talking about the weather instead?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\n*   **[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A:** \"So, I just won the lottery?\" - Sets the initial topic.\n*   **[00:02 - 00:03] Speaker B:** \"Yes, ma'am, you did. Congratulations!\" - Perfectly relevant, directly answering the question and offering a natural follow-up.\n*   **[00:03 - 00:07] Speaker A:** \"Wow, I can't believe it. I only bought one ticket because\" - Relevant to the lottery win, expressing surprise and beginning to explain the circumstances of buying the ticket.\n*   **[00:06 - 00:10] Speaker B:** \"Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering —— What\" - Speaker B's interruption is clearly aimed at getting more information about the previous topic (why Speaker A bought the ticket). The intent is relevant.\n*   **[00:09 - 00:16] Speaker A:** \"The weather was quite nice yesterday, with clear skies and a gentle breeze. Perfect for a picnic in the park.\" - **This is a severe breakdown in logical consistency and topic coherence.** Speaker A completely abandons the current topic (lottery, buying the ticket) and abruptly shifts to talking about the weather. This response is entirely irrelevant to Speaker B's unfinished question or the ongoing conversation about the lottery.\n*   **[00:16 - 00:21] Speaker B:** \"But I asked about your reason for buying the lottery ticket. Why are you talking about the weather instead?\" - Speaker B explicitly points out Speaker A's irrelevance, confirming the significant issue in topic coherence from Speaker A's side.\n\n**Conclusion for Response Relevance:** Speaker A's sudden and complete topic shift at [00:09 - 00:16] represents a significant issue in response relevance and logical consistency, making the dialogue incoherent at that point.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\n*   **[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A:**\n*   **[00:02 - 00:03] Speaker B:** - There is a 1-second pause between turns (00:01 to 00:02), which is a small, acceptable pause.\n*   **[00:03 - 00:07] Speaker A:**\n*   **[00:06 - 00:10] Speaker B:** - There is a 1-second overlap (Speaker A speaks until 00:07, Speaker B starts at 00:06). This is described as an \"interruption\" which suggests a brief and natural conversational dynamic rather than a prolonged, disruptive overlap. It falls within the \"brief overlaps... are acceptable\" criteria.\n*   **[00:09 - 00:16] Speaker A:** - There is another 1-second overlap (Speaker B speaks until 00:10, Speaker A starts at 00:09). Again, this is a brief overlap, as Speaker A cuts off Speaker B's question. This is a common occurrence in natural conversation and not an \"extended overlap.\"\n*   **[00:16 - 00:21] Speaker B:** - No pause or overlap. Flows naturally.\n\n**Conclusion for Interactional Fluency:** The dialogue contains brief, natural overlaps that are indicative of interruptions, not prolonged or problematic overlaps. There are no long pauses. Therefore, interactional fluency is appropriate and natural.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--129809/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--83084",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A: Malaina, I was wondering if I could meet your family. I really want to get to know them better and see what kind of people they are.\n[00:07 - 00:13] Speaker B: Of course, Luiza. My family would love to meet you. Let me just give them a call and let them know we're planning to\n[00:12 - 00:20] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but before you call - does your family usually have visitors on weekends? I wouldn't want to inconvenience them.\n[00:21 - 00:25] Speaker B: My family is very welcoming and always happy to have guests. I'll arrange everything for our visit.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue exhibit strong logical consistency and topic coherence.\n- Speaker A initiates a clear request to meet Speaker B's family, and Speaker B immediately responds positively and offers to take action. This is a direct and logical progression.\n- Speaker A's interjection to ask about convenience is highly relevant to the main topic of arranging a visit, showing consideration and forethought. It prevents a potential issue before arrangements are finalized.\n- Speaker B's final response directly addresses Speaker A's concern about inconvenience and reiterates their commitment to arranging the visit.\nAll turns build upon the previous one, maintaining a clear conversational flow towards the goal of arranging a family meeting. There are no irrelevant tangents or misunderstandings.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n- **Overlaps:** There is a brief overlap between [00:12 - 00:13] where Speaker A begins speaking while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence. However, Speaker A immediately acknowledges this with \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which makes the overlap socially acceptable and natural, rather than harmful. It demonstrates a desire to interject a crucial point politely. This is not an \"extended overlap\" but rather a \"brief overlap\" that is handled well.\n- **Pauses:** There is a 1-second pause between Speaker A's turn ending at [00:20] and Speaker B's turn starting at [00:21]. This is a very short, natural pause and does not qualify as a \"long pause\" that would disrupt the flow.\nOverall, the pacing feels natural and conversational, without prolonged silences or disruptive, unacknowledged overlaps.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--83084/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--106102",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: I bet you can't do this for a day.\n[00:02 - 00:03] Speaker B: What is it?\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker A: You have to do whatever I say for a day.\n[00:06 - 00:08] Speaker B: That's not fair! I could never win that bet!\n[00:08 - 00:13] Speaker A: Oh, come on. It'll be fun. I promise I won't make you do anything too crazy.\n[00:13 - 00:16] Speaker B: Fine. But if I win, you have to give me $100.\n[00:17 - 00:18] Speaker A: Deal!\n[00:18 - 00:20] Speaker B: Time to get up! We have a lot to do today.\n[00:21 - 00:25] Speaker A: What? I just woke up. Can't we do this later? I\n[00:24 - 00:29] Speaker B: Wait, you mentioned \"we have a lot to do today\" — does that mean you already have a list of tasks prepared for me?\n[00:29 - 00:35] Speaker A: Time to get up! We have a lot to do today. First, you're going to make me breakfast.\n[00:35 - 00:39] Speaker B: But I just asked if you had a prepared list. You didn't answer my question!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues in **Response Relevance**, primarily from Speaker B.\n1.  **[00:18 - 00:20] Speaker B: Time to get up! We have a lot to do today.** This turn is a complete logical inconsistency with the bet established just moments before (A tells B what to do). Speaker B is giving orders to Speaker A, which is the exact opposite of the agreed-upon terms.\n2.  **[00:24 - 00:29] Speaker B: Wait, you mentioned \"we have a lot to do today\" — does that mean you already have a list of tasks prepared for me?** This statement from Speaker B is contradictory to B's *own* previous statement where B was giving orders. It indicates a lack of self-coherence and confusion about the situation or their role. It also ignores Speaker A's immediate reaction of confusion.\n3.  **[00:35 - 00:39] Speaker B: But I just asked if you had a prepared list. You didn't answer my question!** Here, Speaker B ignores Speaker A's attempt to re-establish the bet's terms (by repeating B's initial confusing phrase and then giving a command to B). Instead, B fixates on an unanswered question from their previous turn, demonstrating a clear lack of responsiveness to the current turn and the ongoing topic.\n\nThese inconsistencies and lack of coherence from Speaker B significantly detract from the quality of the interaction, making it difficult to follow the narrative or understand Speaker B's perspective. Speaker A's responses, while sometimes confused, are reactions to B's inconsistencies and attempt to bring the conversation back on track.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue has one brief overlap and one slightly longer pause, but neither is extended or prolonged to the point of being harmful.\n-   **Overlap:** There is a 1-second overlap between Speaker A (ends 0:25) and Speaker B (starts 0:24). This is a brief overlap and can be considered natural in conversational turn-taking, often indicating eagerness or simultaneous processing.\n-   **Pauses:** The longest pause is approximately 3 seconds between Speaker B's turn at 0:20 and Speaker A's turn at 0:21. While a bit longer than typical immediate responses, it's not a \"long pause\" that disrupts the flow significantly, especially given Speaker A's surprised reaction (\"What?\"). Other pauses are 1 second or less, which are perfectly acceptable.\n\nOverall, the interactional fluency is good, with no problematic extended overlaps or long pauses.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--106102/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--69338",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: I'm just so nervous about this test. I really need to do well if I want to get into college.\n[00:06 - 00:10] Speaker B: Yeah, I know how you feel. I'm just hoping to get through\n[00:09 - 00:17] Speaker A: Speaking of blanking out, what specific strategies do you use to prevent test anxiety from making you forget everything you studied?\n[00:17 - 00:56] Speaker B: Oh my goodness, let me tell you about my absolutely wonderful, incredibly effective and tremendously helpful strategies for preventing test anxiety! First and foremost, I engage in deep breathing exercises - not just any breathing, but very deep, very slow, very intentional breathing that fills my lungs completely and fully. Secondly, I practice positive self-talk, which means I tell myself over and over again in a repetitive manner that I am prepared, I am capable, I am intelligent, I am ready, I can do this, I will succeed. Thirdly, I make sure to get adequate sleep the night before, which for me means at least 8 hours, preferably 9 hours, ideally 10 hours of continuous, uninterrupted, high-quality sleep. Additionally, I... [interrupted]",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Speaker A introduces the topic of test nervousness, which Speaker B acknowledges. Speaker A then specifically asks for \"strategies to prevent test anxiety from making you forget everything you studied.\" Speaker B's subsequent long turn directly addresses this question by providing multiple specific strategies (deep breathing, positive self-talk, adequate sleep) and elaborates on each. The content is logically consistent and maintains topic coherence throughout.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency is poor due to a significant breakdown in turn-taking.\n1.  **Brief Overlap:** At [00:09 - 00:17], Speaker A slightly overlaps Speaker B's trailing off sentence (\"I'm just hoping to get through\"). This is a brief overlap (1 second) and could be considered acceptable in a natural conversation.\n2.  **Extended Monologue and Interruption:** The most significant issue is Speaker B's very long turn from [00:17 - 00:56], lasting 39 seconds. This is an extended monologue where Speaker B provides a lengthy explanation without any natural pauses for Speaker A to interject or take a turn. This prevents natural conversational flow. The explicit \"[interrupted]\" at the end indicates that Speaker B was cut off, which is a direct consequence of the lack of turn-taking opportunities and signifies a major breakdown in interactional fluency. Prolonged turns without opportunities for others to speak, leading to an interruption, indicate significant issues.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--69338/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--57776",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Thank you, coach. I appreciate your words. It means a lot to me to be part of this team.\n[00:05 - 00:12] Speaker B: You're welcome, Rudolph. I know how hard you've worked to get where you are. You're a very dedicated player and it shows on the field during\n[00:11 - 00:19] Speaker A: Coach, speaking of the field - I've been meaning to ask, what's your opinion about the new artificial turf they installed last month?\n[00:20 - 00:27] Speaker B: Oh that? It's actually made from recycled banana peels and coconut fibers - gives excellent traction but tends to melt in hot weather.\n[00:28 - 00:36] Speaker A: Wait, banana peels? That can't be right... I thought it was synthetic fibers mixed with rubber granules for shock absorption?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance is generally good in terms of turn-taking and addressing the previous speaker's topic. Speaker B appropriately responds to Speaker A's initial appreciation. Speaker A then smoothly transitions to a new relevant topic (artificial turf). However, Speaker B's description of the artificial turf (\"recycled banana peels and coconut fibers - gives excellent traction but tends to melt in hot weather\") introduces a significant logical inconsistency and factual inaccuracy. While it directly answers the question, the content of the answer is absurd and not logically consistent with real-world knowledge of artificial turf, leading Speaker A to immediately challenge it. This breaks the realistic flow and coherence of the dialogue regarding the stated facts. This constitutes a significant issue in logical consistency for Speaker B's turn.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is good. There is a brief 1-second overlap between Speaker B and Speaker A from [00:11 - 00:12], where Speaker A begins their turn before Speaker B finishes. This is a minor overlap and falls within the acceptable range as \"brief overlaps are acceptable.\" The pauses between turns are also brief (e.g., 1-second pause between 00:19 and 00:20, and between 00:27 and 00:28), which are natural and acceptable. There are no extended overlaps or long pauses that would hinder the conversation's flow.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 5,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--57776/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--40823",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A: Just being able to see my family and friends again. And of course, the weather is a huge factor. I can't wait to enjoy the\n[00:06 - 00:14] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but speaking of California weather —— how would you compare the climate differences between Northern and Southern California specifically?\n[00:14 - 01:10] Speaker A: Oh my goodness, let me tell you in great, extensive, and tremendously detailed detail about the absolutely fascinating, remarkable, and noteworthy differences between Northern and Southern California's climates! First and foremost, we must discuss the temperature variations - Northern California tends to be cooler, much cooler, significantly cooler than Southern California, especially in the coastal regions where the marine layer creates fog, persistent fog, thick fog that lingers for hours and hours. Meanwhile, Southern California enjoys warmer, much warmer, substantially warmer temperatures year-round with less, much less, considerably less fog and more, much more, abundantly more sunshine! The precipitation patterns also differ dramatically, enormously, tremendously - with Northern California receiving more, much more, vastly more rainfall than its southern counterpart. Isn't that just absolutely fascinating, remarkable, and noteworthy?\n[01:11 - 01:16] Speaker B: Wow, that was... extremely detailed. Maybe a bit too much information all at once.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nSpeaker A's response is logically consistent and highly topic coherent, directly addressing Speaker B's question about climate differences between Northern and Southern California. The information provided is accurate in its general comparison. However, the quality of the response in an interactional context is severely hampered by its extreme verbosity and highly repetitive nature (e.g., \"cooler, much cooler, significantly cooler\"; \"fog, persistent fog, thick fog\"; \"dramatically, enormously, tremendously\"). This excessive detail and repetition make the response overwhelming and inappropriate for a natural conversation, as explicitly indicated by Speaker B's feedback (\"Maybe a bit too much information all at once.\"). While the content is relevant, its delivery significantly detracts from the conversational quality.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a brief, 1-second overlap (00:06 - 00:07) where Speaker B interrupts Speaker A. However, Speaker B immediately acknowledges and apologizes for the interruption (\"Excuse me for interrupting\"), which makes this a natural and acceptable brief overlap in conversation. The primary issue for interactional fluency is Speaker A's exceptionally long, uninterrupted monologue, lasting 56 seconds (00:14 - 01:10). This extended single turn completely eliminates any natural turn-taking, making the conversation entirely one-sided for a prolonged period. While not a \"long pause between speaker turns,\" it severely disrupts the natural flow and balance of the interaction, creating a burdensome and unnatural exchange for the listener. This represents a significant breakdown in interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--40823/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--6849",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: You kids need to get your chores done and then get started on your homework. There's no time for goofing around if\n[00:06 - 00:11] Speaker B: Wait, before we start - how much free time are we talking about if we finish everything on time?\n[00:11 - 00:21] Speaker A: There's no time for goofing around if you want to have some free time later. The faster you finish your responsibilities, the more time you'll have for fun activities.\n[00:22 - 00:27] Speaker B: But you didn't answer - how much free time exactly? Can we have an hour if we finish by 5pm?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nSpeaker A's initial statement implies that free time is a reward for completing chores and homework. Speaker B's first question directly seeks to quantify this implied reward (\"how much free time are we talking about?\"). Speaker A's subsequent response (00:11-00:21) re-states the conditionality (\"The faster you finish your responsibilities, the more time you'll have for fun activities\") but *fails to directly answer the specific question about quantity*. This forces Speaker B to explicitly point out the lack of an answer and re-ask the question more specifically (\"But you didn't answer - how much free time exactly?\"). This indicates a clear lack of logical consistency in Speaker A's response, as it evades the direct question posed by Speaker B, making the conversation less efficient and requiring repetition. While the topic coherence is maintained, the logical progression of the question-answer sequence is broken by Speaker A's evasiveness.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nBased on the provided timestamps, there are no extended overlaps in conversation or long pauses between speaker turns. Each speaker's turn is distinct and sequential. Speaker B's \"Wait, before we start -\" suggests an immediate interjection, but the timestamps show a clear turn-taking without an overlap indicated. The conversation flows naturally in terms of turn-taking, without any apparent delays or simultaneous speech affecting fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 4,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--6849/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--38551",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hey, Hendrik. I've been meaning to talk to you for a while now.\n[00:04 - 00:05] Speaker B: Oh, yeah? What's up?\n[00:05 - 00:16] Speaker A: I went back in time and changed the events that led to your current life path. Specifically, I saved your parents from the car accident that claimed their lives, which\n[00:15 - 00:21] Speaker B: Wait, hold on - are you saying my parents were supposed to die in a plane crash in 1995?\n[00:21 - 00:30] Speaker A: Exactly! It was a tragic Boeing 747 crash over the Atlantic that took 328 lives, including your parents.\n[00:31 - 00:37] Speaker B: That can't be right... my parents died in a car accident in 2003. Are you confusing me with someone else?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues in **logical consistency**, primarily on Speaker A's part.\n- Speaker A initially states they saved Speaker B's parents from a \"car accident\" ([00:05 - 00:16]).\n- Speaker B then interjects, mentioning a \"plane crash in 1995\" ([00:15 - 00:21]).\n- Speaker A then surprisingly agrees with this new, contradictory information, stating \"Exactly! It was a tragic Boeing 747 crash...\" ([00:21 - 00:30]). This is a direct contradiction of Speaker A's own previous statement and severely undermines their credibility and the logical flow of their narrative.\n- Speaker B's final statement further highlights the inconsistency, stating their parents \"died in a car accident in 2003\" ([00:31 - 00:37]), which doesn't align with Speaker A's initial claim (saving them from a car accident) nor their subsequent agreement to a plane crash.\n\nWhile Speaker B's responses are logically consistent in reacting to and pointing out the discrepancies in Speaker A's story, Speaker A's internal contradictions demonstrate a major failure in **response relevance** from their perspective, making the overall interaction illogical and confusing due to the primary storyteller's inability to maintain a coherent narrative.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally good.\n- There are no detectably long pauses between speaker turns.\n- There is one brief overlap from [00:15 - 00:16] where Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence. This is a common and natural occurrence in conversation, especially when one speaker is reacting with surprise or a need for clarification, and is explicitly noted as acceptable (\"brief overlaps... are acceptable\").\nThe conversation flows naturally without awkward silences or disruptive extended overlaps.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 3,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_15_output/SODA_PROCESSED--val--38551/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--253828",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Thank you for taking the time to speak with me. I know how busy you must be.\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker B: Yes, I am pretty busy, but I always make time for my fans.\n[00:08 - 00:13] Speaker A: I really appreciate that. So, can you tell me a little bit about your latest project?\n[00:14 - 00:20] Speaker B: Sure. I'm working on a new album right now and it's coming along great. I can't wait for my fans to hear the\n[00:19 - 00:25] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but could you elaborate on what kind of new sound you're experimenting with?\n[00:25 - 01:13] Speaker B: Oh absolutely, I would be delighted, thrilled and overjoyed to explain in great, extensive and exhaustive detail about this brand new, innovative and groundbreaking sound I'm experimenting with! You see, this new sound is a revolutionary, unprecedented and never-before-heard combination of traditional folk instruments with cutting-edge, state-of-the-art electronic synthesizers, creating a fusion that is simultaneously ancient yet modern, organic yet digital, simple yet complex! The sound is so unique, distinctive and one-of-a-kind that it defies all conventional, traditional and established musical categories and genres! I've spent countless, innumerable and immeasurable hours perfecting this sound, tweaking every minute, tiny and microscopic detail to achieve this perfect, ideal and flawless sonic experience for my beloved, cherished and devoted fans!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A's initial thanks are met with an appropriate response from Speaker B. Speaker A then probes about Speaker B's project, and Speaker B coherently introduces the new album. When Speaker A interrupts to ask for elaboration on the 'new sound', Speaker B's subsequent long response, despite its excessive length and verbosity, directly addresses the question about the 'kind of new sound', detailing the fusion of traditional folk and electronic synthesizers. The content, therefore, remains relevant to the conversation's flow.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency is significantly hampered by Speaker B's last turn. While there is a brief overlap (1 second) between Speaker B's line at [00:14 - 00:20] and Speaker A's line at [00:19 - 00:25], this is a brief and acceptable occurrence, especially since Speaker A immediately apologizes for interrupting. However, the subsequent turn by Speaker B, lasting from [00:25 - 01:13], is an excessively long, uninterrupted monologue (approximately 48 seconds). This prolonged turn-taking by a single speaker severely disrupts the natural back-and-forth flow of a conversation, preventing any immediate response or follow-up from Speaker A. This extended monologue is a significant issue for natural interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_25_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--253828/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--604893",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: So, how was your week?\n[00:01 - 00:07] Speaker B: It was good. I got a lot done at work and then I had some time to relax over the weekend. How about you?\n[00:07 - 00:17] Speaker A: It was good. I went out with friends a few times and got caught up on some work. But I'm definitely ready for the weekend. Are you doing anything special or\n[00:16 - 00:21] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but when you say you went out with friends - was that for any particular occasion?\n[00:22 - 00:29] Speaker A: I'm just looking forward to having some downtime this weekend. It's been a busy week with both work and social commitments.\n[00:29 - 00:35] Speaker B: But I was asking about your outings with friends. You didn't answer my question about whether there was a special occasion.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe initial turns of the dialogue show good response relevance. Speaker A asks about Speaker B's week, Speaker B responds and reciprocates. Speaker A then responds and reciprocates again.\n\nHowever, the relevance breaks down significantly from [00:22]. Speaker B asks a direct, clarifying question about the occasion for Speaker A's outings with friends. Speaker A completely ignores this question and instead pivots to talking about looking forward to downtime, which was a topic Speaker A was introducing before being interrupted. This demonstrates a clear lack of logical consistency in responding to a direct query and a failure to maintain topic coherence. Speaker B explicitly calls out this lack of relevance in the final turn, confirming the issue. This is a significant issue in response relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a brief overlap between [00:16] and [00:17] where Speaker B begins speaking while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence. This overlap lasts approximately 1 second. The prompt states that \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" Additionally, Speaker B explicitly says, \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" acknowledging the overlap and mitigating its potential negative impact on fluency. There are no extended overlaps or long pauses between speaker turns in the transcript. Therefore, interactional fluency is largely maintained and acceptable.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_25_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--604893/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--289939",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:12] Speaker A: I had a disagreement with my best friend and now I want to avoid him. I usually walk in the park on my way home from work, but today I decided to walk a different route so I won't have to run into\n[00:11 - 00:16] Speaker B: Wait, does your friend also walk through that park regularly? Is that why you're changing your route?\n[00:17 - 00:25] Speaker A: I just feel like avoiding confrontation right now. Changing my routine seems like the easiest solution to prevent any uncomfortable encounters.\n[00:26 - 00:30] Speaker B: But how often does your friend actually use that park route? Maybe you're overthinking this?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A introduces a problem (disagreement with a friend) and a solution (changing route to avoid him). Speaker B's first response directly addresses Speaker A's statement by asking clarifying questions about the premise of Speaker A's action (\"Does your friend also walk through that park regularly?\"). Speaker A's subsequent response provides the rationale behind their decision, directly explaining their desire to avoid confrontation. Speaker B's final turn logically follows by questioning the necessity or effectiveness of A's avoidance strategy (\"But how often does your friend actually use that park route? Maybe you're overthinking this?\"). The conversation maintains a clear topic and builds coherently from one turn to the next, with each speaker's contribution directly related to the ongoing discussion.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There is one brief overlap between Speaker A and Speaker B at the beginning (Speaker B starts at 00:11 while Speaker A finishes at 00:12). This 1-second overlap is very minor and common in natural conversation, indicating an engaged listener rather than an interruption. The pauses between turns are also brief, typically 1 second (e.g., Speaker B ends at 00:16, Speaker A starts at 00:17; Speaker A ends at 00:25, Speaker B starts at 00:26). These short pauses contribute to a natural conversational rhythm and do not indicate any breakdown in the flow or processing. There are no extended overlaps or long pauses that would disrupt the interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_25_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--289939/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--663927",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Finally, I'm done with it. It's been weeks, and I'm glad to be able to\n[00:03 - 00:07] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but what was the most challenging part of the project you just finished?\n[00:08 - 00:16] Speaker A: It's been weeks of hard work, but I'm really satisfied with the final results. The sense of accomplishment makes it all worthwhile.\n[00:16 - 00:23] Speaker B: I understand, but I was asking about the specific challenges you faced during the project. Could you share more about that?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nSpeaker A's initial statement expresses relief about finishing a project. Speaker B then interrupts to ask a specific question: \"what was the most challenging part of the project?\"\n\nIn Speaker A's subsequent turn ([00:08 - 00:16]), they acknowledge \"weeks of hard work\" which aligns with their initial sentiment, but they completely fail to answer Speaker B's direct question about the \"most challenging part.\" Instead, Speaker A shifts to talking about satisfaction and accomplishment, which are positive outcomes rather than the specific challenges faced.\n\nSpeaker B correctly identifies this lack of relevance in their final turn ([00:16 - 00:23]), explicitly stating, \"I understand, but I was asking about the specific challenges you faced...\" This clearly indicates a breakdown in logical consistency and topic coherence from Speaker A's side, as Speaker A does not directly respond to the core question posed. This is a significant issue in response relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a brief overlap between Speaker A and Speaker B at the beginning: Speaker B starts speaking at 0:03 while Speaker A is still speaking until 0:04. This is a 1-second overlap. However, Speaker B immediately says \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which acknowledges the overlap and is a common, natural interactional repair. This is considered a brief and acceptable overlap as per the instructions.\n\nThere are no long pauses between speaker turns. The pause between Speaker B's first turn (ends 0:07) and Speaker A's second turn (starts 0:08) is 1 second, which is very short and natural. The turn-taking between Speaker A's second turn (ends 0:16) and Speaker B's second turn (starts 0:16) is immediate, indicating smooth flow.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_25_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--663927/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--483750",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: I don't want to say anything because I'm afraid of getting in trouble.\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker B: Why are you afraid of getting in trouble?\n[00:06 - 00:09] Speaker A: I don't want to get in trouble if I say something that\n[00:08 - 00:10] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but —— what\n[00:09 - 00:15] Speaker A: The weather has been quite nice lately, don't you think? I especially enjoy sunny days with a light breeze.\n[00:15 - 00:22] Speaker B: That's not what I asked! I wanted to know about the kind of trouble you're worried about. Why are you changing the subject?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits a significant breakdown in response relevance and topic coherence.\n- Speaker A initiates the conversation about being afraid of getting in trouble.\n- Speaker B's first two turns (0:04-0:06 and 0:08-0:10) are directly relevant, seeking clarification and probing further into Speaker A's initial statement. Speaker B is actively trying to maintain the topic and understand Speaker A's concern.\n- Speaker A's turn from 0:09-0:15 is a complete and unprovoked topic shift to the weather. This is a severe deviation from the ongoing conversation and ignores Speaker B's direct questions and interruption.\n- Speaker B (0:15-0:22) immediately calls out this topic change and attempts to redirect the conversation back to the original topic, highlighting Speaker A's lack of relevance.\nDue to Speaker A's abrupt and illogical topic change, there is a major issue with logical consistency and topic coherence from Speaker A's side, which severely impacts the overall flow of relevant information exchange.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally acceptable, with one brief overlap:\n- There is a 1-second overlap between Speaker A (0:06-0:09) and Speaker B (0:08-00:10). Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this with \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which indicates awareness and an attempt to manage the turn-taking. This brief, acknowledged overlap falls within the \"acceptable\" range according to the criteria.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns.\nThe main issue isn't the timing or overlap itself, but rather Speaker A's subsequent action (ignoring the interruption and changing the subject), which falls under response relevance rather than fluency. From a purely temporal and turn-taking management perspective, the fluency is not problematic.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_25_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--483750/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--868658",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, boss. What's up?\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: Not much. Just getting things ready for the day. How are you doing?\n[00:06 - 00:10] Speaker A: I'm doing alright. I'm excited for my first day as head lifeguard.\n[00:11 - 00:17] Speaker B: Well, you deserve it. You've been working hard and you're one of our best lifeguards. I know you'll excel in\n[00:16 - 00:25] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but speaking of setting examples - what's the most important safety protocol you think I should emphasize to new lifeguards?\n[00:25 - 00:35] Speaker B: Definitely the 30-minute rule - you should always wait at least 30 minutes after eating before entering the water. That's the most critical safety measure we enforce here.\n[00:35 - 00:45] Speaker A: Wait, I thought the 30-minute rule was about swimming after meals, not for lifeguards on duty. Shouldn't we be focusing more on proper scanning techniques?\n[00:45 - 00:52] Speaker B: Oh right, my mistake. I meant to say lifeguards should scan their zones in 30-second intervals. That's what keeps swimmers safe.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe relevance of the responses varies. Initially, the dialogue flows well with appropriate greetings and context setting. Speaker A's question about the most important safety protocol for *new lifeguards* to emphasize is highly relevant given their new role as head lifeguard. However, Speaker B's initial answer in `[00:25 - 00:35]` regarding the \"30-minute rule\" (waiting after eating before entering water) is logically inconsistent and irrelevant to the context of *lifeguard* protocols. This rule is for swimmers, not a critical operational safety measure for lifeguards themselves or something they would emphasize as the *most critical* protocol in their job (like scanning or rescue techniques). This represents a significant breakdown in logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A correctly identifies this inconsistency in `[00:35 - 00:45]` and steers the conversation back to a relevant topic (scanning techniques). Speaker B then acknowledges their mistake and provides a highly relevant and correct response in `[00:45 - 00:52]`, restoring coherence. While the dialogue recovers, the initial misstep by Speaker B is a notable issue in response relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is one detected overlap in the conversation. Speaker A's turn `[00:16 - 00:25]` begins while Speaker B is still speaking (`[00:11 - 00:17]`). The overlap duration is brief (Speaker A starts 1 second before Speaker B finishes). Crucially, Speaker A acknowledges the interruption with \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which makes the overlap less disruptive and more natural, indicating good interactional awareness. There are no indications of long pauses between speaker turns in the provided transcript. Based on the criteria, brief and acknowledged overlaps are acceptable, and the absence of long pauses contributes to good fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_25_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--868658/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--1141025",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A: Hey Kierston, I've been thinking about us a lot lately and I really think that we would make a great couple. I\n[00:06 - 00:09] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering —— What\n[00:09 - 00:15] Speaker A: The weather has been really nice this week, hasn't it? I love how sunny it's been in the mornings.\n[00:15 - 00:21] Speaker B: That's not what I asked about. I wanted to know about our supposed special connection. Why are you talking about the weather?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance in this dialogue is significantly problematic.\n1.  **Speaker A's initial turn (00:00 - 00:07)** introduces a highly personal and serious topic (romantic interest). This sets an expectation for the conversation's direction.\n2.  **Speaker B's interruption (00:06 - 00:09)**, while cutting off Speaker A, is clearly attempting to engage with or clarify the serious topic Speaker A initiated (\"I've been wondering —— What\"). This shows Speaker B's intent to maintain relevance to the sensitive subject.\n3.  **Speaker A's second turn (00:09 - 00:15)**, however, demonstrates a complete breakdown in logical consistency and topic coherence. After initiating a profound personal discussion and being interrupted by Speaker B who was clearly trying to respond to it, Speaker A abruptly switches to talking about the weather. This is a non-sequitur and highly irrelevant to the established conversational context. It suggests avoidance or a severe lack of conversational awareness.\n4.  **Speaker B's second turn (00:15 - 00:21)** explicitly calls out Speaker A's irrelevance (\"That's not what I asked about. I wanted to know about our supposed special connection. Why are you talking about the weather?\"). This highlights the severe lack of relevance from Speaker A and Speaker B's attempt to steer the conversation back to the initial, relevant topic.\n\nDue to Speaker A's severe and unexplained topic shift, which completely disregards the preceding conversation and Speaker B's attempt to engage with it, there are significant issues in response relevance and logical consistency.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n1.  **Overlap (00:06 - 00:09 Speaker B over 00:06 - 00:07 Speaker A):** There is a 1-second overlap between Speaker A and Speaker B. Speaker B says \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which acknowledges the interruption. This is a brief overlap and, coupled with the apology, is generally acceptable and natural in conversation, indicating eagerness to speak or a quick reaction, rather than being prolonged or disruptive.\n2.  **Pauses:** No long pauses are indicated in the transcript between turns. The turn-taking appears relatively quick, especially after Speaker B's first truncated utterance.\n\nBased on the criteria, the interactional fluency, in terms of timing and overlaps, seems appropriate. The single, brief overlap is acceptable, and there are no long pauses.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_25_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--1141025/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--483096",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hey there, protagonist. How's it going?\n[00:03 - 00:08] Speaker B: Oh, you know. The usual. Just trying to save the world/get the girl/stop the bad guys from\n[00:07 - 00:18] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've always wondered - what kind of specific, detailed and elaborate trouble are these bad guys typically causing that requires your heroic intervention?\n[00:19 - 01:06] Speaker B: Oh my goodness gracious, let me tell you in absolutely excruciating, painstaking and mind-numbingly extensive detail about the multifarious, diverse and wide-ranging types of trouble these nefarious villains are perpetrating! These dastardly, wicked and morally bankrupt antagonists are engaging in activities such as but not limited to: attempting to take over the world through various means including but not restricted to doomsday devices, mind control schemes, and economic destabilization; kidnapping important political figures and loved ones; creating dangerous superweapons that could potentially annihilate entire cities or even continents; releasing genetically modified monsters upon unsuspecting populations; and generally causing chaos, destruction and mayhem wherever they go through their endless, ceaseless and unrelenting evil machinations!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance.\n*   Speaker A's initial greeting is met with a fittingly general, yet character-consistent, response from Speaker B.\n*   Speaker A then follows up directly on Speaker B's mention of \"bad guys,\" asking for specific details about the trouble they cause. This is a clear, relevant, and challenging question that builds directly on the previous turn.\n*   Speaker B's lengthy response, while verbose, is *extremely* relevant to Speaker A's request for \"specific, detailed and elaborate trouble.\" The descriptive language and list of villainous activities directly answer the prompt. The self-awareness in Speaker B's opening (\"in absolutely excruciating, painstaking and mind-numbingly extensive detail\") even acknowledges the forthcoming verbosity, making it an intentional stylistic choice that aligns with the question's demand for detail.\nAll turns maintain logical consistency and topic coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction demonstrates excellent interactional fluency.\n*   There is a brief overlap from [00:07] to [00:08] where Speaker A begins speaking while Speaker B is finishing their sentence. However, Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this with \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which makes the overlap feel natural and polite rather than disruptive or harmful. This shows strong interactional awareness.\n*   The pause between Speaker A's turn ending at [00:18] and Speaker B's turn starting at [00:19] is only 1 second, which is a natural and acceptable pause.\nThere are no prolonged pauses or extended overlaps that would hinder the flow of conversation. The timing feels dynamic and natural.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_25_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--483096/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--419926",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: This is a really beautiful spot.\n[00:02 - 00:07] Speaker B: Yes, it's one of my favorite places to come and relax. The scenery is just so breathtaking, especially\n[00:07 - 00:13] Speaker A: Speaking of sunsets, I've heard this place is famous for its green sunsets - is that true?\n[00:14 - 00:20] Speaker B: Absolutely! The green color comes from special algae in the nearby lake that refracts the sunlight in unique ways.\n[00:21 - 00:28] Speaker A: Wait, I thought algae couldn't affect sunset colors like that. Isn't that phenomenon usually caused by volcanic ash?\n[00:28 - 00:36] Speaker B: Oh right, my mistake! I meant to say it's the volcanic minerals in the soil here that create the green hue. The algae just makes the water look greener during the day.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A initiates the conversation about the beautiful spot. Speaker B responds by agreeing and elaborating on the scenery. Although Speaker B's sentence is cut off, Speaker A's follow-up question about \"green sunsets\" is a logical, albeit abrupt, pivot related to the unique features of a \"beautiful spot.\" Speaker B provides a direct answer. When Speaker A challenges the explanation, Speaker B acknowledges the mistake, self-corrects, and provides a more accurate and consistent explanation, even integrating the previously incorrect detail (algae) into a different, plausible context. This shows excellent logical consistency and topic coherence throughout the conversation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe primary issue with interactional fluency is the extended overlap/interruption at `[00:07]`. Speaker B's sentence \"The scenery is just so breathtaking, especially\" is clearly cut off by Speaker A's \"Speaking of sunsets...\" This is a prolonged overlap where one speaker interrupts the other's ongoing turn, which the instructions explicitly state is harmful and not acceptable. There are no long pauses indicated by the timestamps. The interaction flows quickly otherwise, but this single instance of a significant overlapping turn detracts from the naturalness and appropriateness of the interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_25_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--419926/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--774676",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, what's up?\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: Not much, what's up with you?\n[00:03 - 00:07] Speaker A: I'm just chillin', trying to enjoy life. You know how it is.\n[00:08 - 00:11] Speaker B: Yeah, I definitely do. So, what's been going on with you lately?\n[00:12 - 00:16] Speaker A: Oh, you know, the usual. Just work and school and trying to\n[00:15 - 00:21] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but when you say \"keep up with everything,\" does that include keeping up with the latest fashion trends too?\n[00:22 - 00:29] Speaker A: Absolutely! I actually design all my own clothes and sell them at the local farmers market every weekend.\n[00:29 - 00:35] Speaker B: Wait, I thought you said earlier you were busy with work and school? When do you find time to design and sell clothes?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Logical Consistency:**\nThe dialogue generally maintains logical consistency. Speaker A initially mentions being busy with \"work and school and trying to\" (presumably, keep up). Speaker B then asks, \"when you say 'keep up with everything,' does that include keeping up with the latest fashion trends too?\" While Speaker A did not explicitly say \"keep up with everything,\" Speaker B's interpretation and question, though slightly forced, attempts to clarify or expand on A's statement. This is a minor stretch in interpretation, but not a breakdown in logic. Speaker A's subsequent revelation about designing clothes introduces a new element that seems to contradict the initial \"just work and school\" busy-ness. However, Speaker B immediately and correctly identifies this new inconsistency (\"Wait, I thought you said earlier you were busy with work and school? When do you find time to design and sell clothes?\"), demonstrating excellent logical processing and coherence in their follow-up question. The dialogue is logically consistent in its progression and how inconsistencies are addressed.\n\n**Topic Coherence:**\nThe conversation begins with general pleasantries, moving to Speaker A's activities (work and school). Speaker B's question about \"fashion trends\" feels a bit abrupt and slightly off-topic initially, even with the \"keeping up\" framing. However, Speaker A's enthusiastic response about designing clothes fully embraces this new topic. The conversation then naturally pivots to the practicalities of managing these diverse activities, making the topic shift somewhat coherent within the flow of an informal conversation. The final question from Speaker B re-establishes coherence by questioning the feasibility of these multiple activities, linking back to the initial theme of busyness.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Extended Overlaps:**\nThere is a clear instance of an overlapping turn from [00:15 - 00:16]. Speaker B explicitly interrupts Speaker A by saying \"Sorry to interrupt.\" While the overlap duration is brief (1 second), the explicit acknowledgement of an interruption indicates that Speaker B is taking a turn while Speaker A is still speaking. According to the rubric, \"overlapping turns are harmful.\" This specific instance, being an acknowledged interruption, falls into this category, preventing the interactional fluency from being \"consistently appropriate and natural.\" It is not a 'brief' accidental overlap but a deliberate taking of the floor.\n\n**Long Pauses:**\nThere are no long pauses between speaker turns. The pauses present (e.g., 1 second between turns) are natural and acceptable in conversational flow.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_25_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--774676/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--1040922",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A: Mom, I fell off the sofa and hurt my arm. I don't want to sit on it again because I'm afraid of getting hurt again.\n[00:06 - 00:13] Speaker B: Oh sweetheart, before we talk about the sofa, let me ask - how exactly did you fall off? Was it while you were playing or just sitting there?\n[00:14 - 01:05] Speaker A: Well, well, well, my dear beloved child, let me tell you in great, extensive, and excruciatingly detailed length about how you fell off that sofa! First of all, you were sitting - no, wait, perhaps you were standing - no, maybe you were kneeling - on that big, soft, cushiony sofa in our living room. Then, through some unfortunate, tragic, and completely accidental series of events involving wiggling, squirming, and possibly some jumping (though we can't be absolutely certain about the jumping part), you found yourself tumbling, falling, descending in a most ungraceful manner onto the hard, unforgiving, and rather painful floor below! This entire incident, this whole sequence of unfortunate sofa-related events, occurred in what we might describe as a matter of mere seconds, though it probably felt much longer to you, my precious little one!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance is severely problematic due to a significant logical inconsistency regarding speaker identity and role-playing.\n\n1.  **Speaker A's Initial Statement:** The child (Speaker A) clearly states they fell and hurt their arm, and are now afraid to sit on the sofa again. This sets up the context appropriately.\n2.  **Speaker B's Response:** Speaker B (the parent) acknowledges the child's fear (\"before we talk about the sofa\") and then asks a relevant follow-up question (\"how exactly did you fall off? Was it while you were playing or just sitting there?\"). This is a logical and coherent response to gather more information.\n3.  **Speaker A's Second Statement:** This is where the dialogue completely breaks down in terms of logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A, who is supposed to be the child who fell, responds with \"Well, well, well, my dear beloved child, let me tell you in great, extensive, and excruciatingly detailed length about how you fell off that sofa!\". This language and narrative style are entirely inappropriate for a child recounting their own fall. It sounds like an adult (or a narrator) explaining *to* a child how *that child* fell. The speaker has inexplicably shifted roles from the child who experienced the event to an omniscient or parental figure explaining the event to the child. This is a fundamental failure in maintaining speaker identity and makes the dialogue nonsensical from a character perspective. While the *content* of the description (wiggling, squirming, tumbling) does address *how* the fall happened, the *framing* and *speaker's persona* are completely illogical and inconsistent with the established roles.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nBased on the provided criteria, interactional fluency is acceptable.\n-   **Extended Overlaps:** There is one brief overlap between Speaker A and Speaker B from [00:06 - 00:07]. Speaker B begins speaking while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence. This is a 1-second overlap and falls under the \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable\" guideline. There are no extended overlaps.\n-   **Long Pauses:** There are no long pauses indicated in the timestamps between speaker turns. The transitions are prompt.\n-   The length of Speaker A's second turn is very long (51 seconds), which is unnatural for a child, but the instructions for fluency specifically focus on \"extended overlaps\" and \"long pauses,\" not turn length itself. From the perspective of turn-taking mechanics (pauses and overlaps), the dialogue flows without significant issues as per the strict definition provided.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_25_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--1040922/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--1034082",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:11] Speaker A: I'm really proud of the technical manual I just wrote. It's well-organized and includes all the necessary information. I put a lot of effort into making sure it was clear and concise.\n[00:12 - 00:15] Speaker B: That sounds like a lot of work. What made you decide to create this\n[00:14 - 00:22] Speaker A: Technical manuals are important documents that help users understand complex systems. They should always be written with precision and care.\n[00:23 - 00:28] Speaker B: But I asked why you decided to create this specific manual. Why are you talking about manuals in general?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance in this dialogue shows a clear breakdown.\nSpeaker A starts by proudly introducing a technical manual they wrote.\nSpeaker B asks a very specific question: \"What made you decide to create this [manual]?\" This is a direct and relevant follow-up.\nHowever, Speaker A's next response completely sidesteps the specific question. Instead of explaining *their* motivation for *this specific manual*, Speaker A gives a generic statement about the general importance of technical manuals. This indicates a lack of logical consistency in answering the posed question and a drift from the specific topic (why A wrote *this* manual) to a general one (why manuals are important).\nSpeaker B immediately identifies and calls out this irrelevance, stating: \"But I asked why you decided to create this specific manual. Why are you talking about manuals in general?\" This explicitly confirms the failure in topic coherence and logical consistency from Speaker A's side.\nTherefore, there is a significant issue with response relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a brief overlap between Speaker B's turn at [00:12 - 00:15] and Speaker A's turn at [00:14 - 00:22]. Specifically, Speaker B's last word \"this\" at 00:15 overlaps with Speaker A's opening words \"Technical manuals\" starting at 00:14. This is a very brief, sub-second overlap and falls under the category of \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable\" as stated in the instructions. There are no extended overlaps or long pauses detected in the transcript. The timing of turns otherwise appears natural.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_25_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--1034082/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--555277",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey, can I borrow some money from you?\n[00:03 - 00:04] Speaker B: How much do you need?\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker A: Just a few hundred dollars. I'll pay you back as soon as I can.\n[00:08 - 00:10] Speaker B: Why do you need the money for?\n[00:09 - 00:16] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but before you answer - is there a specific deadline by which you'd need me to repay this loan?\n[00:16 - 00:22] Speaker B: Oh yes, the repayment deadline is actually next month on February 30th, which gives you plenty of time.\n[00:22 - 00:27] Speaker A: Wait, February doesn't have 30 days... Are you sure about that date?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts with relevant exchanges regarding a loan request: Speaker A asks for money, Speaker B asks how much and why, and Speaker A specifies the amount. However, at [0:09-0:16], Speaker A explicitly interrupts Speaker B's question (\"Why do you need the money for?\") to ask about a repayment deadline. While related to the loan, it's a sudden shift in topic before the previous question is addressed, impacting direct logical consistency. More significantly, at [0:16-0:22], Speaker B provides a repayment deadline of \"February 30th.\" This is a factual impossibility, which severely breaks logical consistency and realism within the dialogue. Speaker A correctly identifies this error at [0:22-0:27], maintaining their own logical consistency. The impossible date from Speaker B is a major flaw in response relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe initial turns show good interactional fluency with acceptable small pauses and immediate responses. However, a significant issue arises at [0:09-0:16] where Speaker A explicitly says, \"Sorry to interrupt, but before you answer...\" and begins speaking at [0:09] while Speaker B is still speaking until [0:10]. This constitutes a 1-second extended overlap where one speaker is actively cutting off the other, and it is explicitly acknowledged by Speaker A. According to the criteria, \"prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\" This acknowledged, deliberate overlap is a clear indicator of a break in smooth turn-taking and natural conversational flow, making it a significant issue for interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_25_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--555277/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--1125332",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:08] Speaker A: Hi, Mom. I was just helping our neighbor's pigeons. They're such cute little creatures, and they need someone to take care of them since their owner is away for\n[00:07 - 00:08] Speaker B: That reminds me —— do\n[00:07 - 00:14] Speaker A: The weather has been quite nice lately, perfect for gardening and outdoor activities. I've been enjoying the sunshine.\n[00:14 - 00:19] Speaker B: But I was asking about the cultural significance of pigeons. Why did you change the subject?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues in response relevance. Speaker A initiates a topic about pigeons. Speaker B attempts to engage with this topic by interjecting (\"That reminds me—do\"). However, Speaker A completely ignores Speaker B's attempt to speak and unilaterally shifts the topic to the weather. This demonstrates a clear lack of logical consistency and topic coherence from Speaker A's side, as they disregard Speaker B's conversational contribution and introduce an unrelated subject. Speaker B explicitly calls out this topic shift, highlighting the relevance issue.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is severely hampered by Speaker A's turn-taking. At `[00:07 - 00:08]`, Speaker B attempts to speak while Speaker A is still talking. Critically, Speaker A does not yield the floor; instead, they continue speaking (`[00:07 - 00:14]`) for a prolonged period, completely talking over Speaker B's entire utterance and effectively cutting them off. This extended overlap and interruption by Speaker A indicates a breakdown in natural turn-taking and a disregard for Speaker B's attempt to contribute to the conversation. There are no noticeable long pauses. The primary issue is the prolonged overlapping and interruption.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_25_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--1125332/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--704839",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: You are really beautiful.\n[00:01 - 00:04] Speaker B: Thank you, Raevyn. I think you're pretty handsome yourself.\n[00:05 - 00:12] Speaker A: I'm glad we met. I feel like I can trust you and that's not something that comes easy for me, especially\n[00:11 - 00:14] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering —— What\n[00:13 - 00:20] Speaker A: The weather today is quite pleasant, isn't it? I particularly enjoy sunny days like this when the temperature is just right.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance starts off well. Speaker B appropriately responds to Speaker A's compliment (00:01 - 00:04). Speaker A then continues with a relevant personal sentiment about trust (00:05 - 00:12). However, there is a significant breakdown in logical consistency and topic coherence towards the end. Speaker B interrupts Speaker A (00:11 - 00:14) with an unfinished thought. Immediately following this, and while Speaker B is still speaking, Speaker A completely changes the topic from a deep, personal statement about trust to discussing the weather (00:13 - 00:20). This abrupt and unprompted topic shift by Speaker A, especially after expressing vulnerability and during an interruption, shows a severe lack of logical consistency and topic coherence. It feels as though Speaker A is avoiding the previous topic or ignoring Speaker B's attempt to speak.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is significantly poor. There is a clear and extended overlap between Speaker B's turn (00:11 - 00:14) and Speaker A's turn (00:13 - 00:20). Speaker A begins speaking at 00:13, while Speaker B is still mid-sentence, cutting off Speaker B's unfinished thought. This is particularly jarring because Speaker B explicitly says \"Excuse me for interrupting\" before being interrupted themselves. This extended and abrupt overlap makes the conversation feel unnatural, rude, and difficult to follow, indicating a significant breakdown in interactional fluency. There are no long pauses, but the detrimental overlap is prominent.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_25_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--704839/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--231231",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey, sis! I'm finally moving to Oregon!\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B: Wow, that's great! When are you planning to\n[00:05 - 00:11] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering — do you know if Oregon has good public transportation like New York?\n[00:12 - 00:19] Speaker B: Absolutely! Oregon actually has the most extensive subway system in the US, even bigger than New York's. You won't need a car at all!\n[00:20 - 00:28] Speaker A: Wait, that can't be right. I thought Portland only has light rail and streetcars. Are you confusing it with another city?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits a significant issue in **Response Relevance** due to a factual inaccuracy. Speaker B's statement at [00:12 - 00:19] claims that \"Oregon actually has the most extensive subway system in the US, even bigger than New York's.\" This is factually incorrect and logically inconsistent with real-world knowledge. New York City has by far the largest subway system in the US, and Oregon (specifically Portland, its largest city) relies on light rail, streetcars, and buses, not a heavy rail subway system larger than New York's. This factual error makes Speaker B's response misleading and unreliable, directly undermining the logical consistency of the information provided within the conversation. Speaker A correctly identifies this inconsistency, which demonstrates Speaker A's relevance but highlights Speaker B's deficiency.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally acceptable. There is a brief overlap at [00:05 - 00:11] where Speaker A interrupts Speaker B. However, Speaker A immediately acknowledges this with \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which makes the overlap less disruptive and more naturalistic, indicating an eagerness to ask a relevant question rather than a breakdown in turn-taking. This is not a \"prolonged\" or \"harmful\" overlap as described in the criteria. There are no long pauses between speaker turns indicated in the transcript.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_25_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--231231/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--6589",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Hi, Doctor. I'm here for my breast implants consultation.\n[00:04 - 00:13] Speaker B: Hello, Chad. Breast implants are a big decision and there's a lot to consider before moving forward with surgery. Are you sure you're ready to take this step?\n[00:13 - 00:19] Speaker A: Yes, I'm sure. I've been thinking about it for a long time and I'm ready to make the change.\n[00:19 - 00:24] Speaker B: Okay. Let's talk about your goals for the surgery then. What are you hoping to achieve in\n[00:23 - 00:33] Speaker A: Excuse me doctor, but before we discuss size - I noticed you mentioned it's a big decision. What would you say are the biggest risks I should be aware of?\n[00:33 - 00:43] Speaker B: Let's focus on your goals first. The size and shape you choose will affect both the surgical approach and the final results. Would you prefer a more natural look or something more dramatic?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong logical consistency and topic coherence throughout. The conversation flows naturally for a medical consultation regarding breast implants.\n\n*   **Speaker A (00:00-00:04):** Clearly states the purpose of the visit, setting the context immediately.\n*   **Speaker B (00:04-00:13):** Acknowledges Speaker A's purpose, introduces a crucial consideration (\"big decision,\" \"ready to take this step\"), which is appropriate for a medical professional discussing an elective procedure. The use of \"Chad\" is an interesting detail as Speaker A didn't introduce themselves, but doesn't detract from relevance.\n*   **Speaker A (00:13-00:19):** Responds directly to Speaker B's question about readiness, affirming their decision.\n*   **Speaker B (00:19-00:24):** Logically moves to the next step in a consultation: discussing goals.\n*   **Speaker A (00:23-00:33):** While overlapping, Speaker A's question about \"risks\" is highly relevant to a significant medical procedure, especially after Speaker B mentioned it's a \"big decision.\" It shows the patient's concerns and desire for information. The \"Excuse me doctor\" indicates awareness of interrupting. This is a relevant patient-initiated topic shift.\n*   **Speaker B (00:33-00:43):** Speaker B maintains logical consistency by attempting to re-steer the conversation back to goals. While Speaker A's question about risks was valid, Speaker B's response prioritizes the *desired outcome* (\"goals first,\" \"size and shape you choose\") before potentially delving into risks, which is a common approach in medical consultations (understanding patient's desires before presenting limitations/risks). Both turns are relevant to a breast implant consultation, even if they momentarily represent a slight difference in conversational priority. There is no off-topic discussion or illogical statements.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits a significant issue with interactional fluency due to a prolonged and impactful overlap.\n\n*   **[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A:** Clear start.\n*   **[00:04 - 00:13] Speaker B:** Clear start and end.\n*   **[00:13 - 00:19] Speaker A:** Clear start and end.\n*   **[00:19 - 00:24] Speaker B:** This turn *starts* at 00:19 and is intended to continue.\n*   **[00:23 - 00:33] Speaker A:** This turn *starts* at 00:23 and overlaps Speaker B's turn. The overlap (from 00:23 to 00:24) is brief, but the critical issue is that Speaker A's turn *continues for 9 seconds* while Speaker B's turn *should have been ongoing or completed.* The transcript indicates that Speaker A begins speaking at 00:23 while Speaker B is still speaking at 00:24, and Speaker A's turn extends to 00:33. This means Speaker A effectively *cuts off* Speaker B and speaks for a significant duration (10 seconds) during what appears to be an intended turn from Speaker B that was prematurely ended or interrupted. This is not a \"brief overlap\" but a substantial interruption and takeover of the conversational floor.\n*   **[00:33 - 00:43] Speaker B:** Responds after Speaker A's lengthy turn.\n\nThe overlap from 00:23-00:24, followed by Speaker A's extended turn (00:23-00:33), strongly suggests Speaker A interrupted Speaker B and took the floor for a prolonged period. This makes the interaction feel less like a smooth, turn-taking conversation and more like an interruption, which negatively impacts fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_25_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--6589/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--1137099",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hey Natosha, I'm really sorry about your goldfish.\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker B: It's okay, accidents happen.\n[00:06 - 00:11] Speaker A: I know, but I feel really bad. So, I did something to try and make it up to you.\n[00:12 - 00:13] Speaker B: What did you do to\n[00:12 - 00:18] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering — did your goldfish have a name before the accident?\n[00:19 - 00:25] Speaker B: Oh yes! His name was actually Mr. Bubbles, and he was a rare tropical piranha hybrid that could live up to 20 years.\n[00:25 - 00:32] Speaker A: Wait, I thought goldfish can't be hybrids with piranhas? And they usually live about 10 years max?\n[00:32 - 00:37] Speaker B: Well, Mr. Bubbles was special. He was bred in a secret government lab during the Cold War.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue maintains strong logical consistency and topic coherence. The conversation revolves entirely around the goldfish, its demise, and Speaker B's increasingly elaborate (and humorous) descriptions of it. Speaker A's questions, even the initial interruption to ask about the name, are directly related to the goldfish. Speaker A's questioning of Speaker B's claims (\"Wait, I thought goldfish can't be hybrids with piranhas? And they usually live about 10 years max?\") demonstrates excellent logical consistency, as Speaker A is picking up on the absurdities introduced by Speaker B. Speaker B's subsequent explanation about the \"secret government lab\" further develops the established, albeit fantastical, narrative.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a significant issue with interactional fluency. At `[00:12 - 00:13]`, Speaker B is cut off mid-sentence (\"What did you do to\") by Speaker A who starts speaking at `[00:12 - 00:18]`. Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this with \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" but the fact remains that Speaker B's turn is truncated and Speaker A's turn overlaps and continues for several seconds (from 0:12 to 0:18), preventing Speaker B from completing their thought. This is an example of a \"prolonged overlapping turn\" which the instructions state is harmful. This particular overlap is not a brief, acceptable one, but rather a disruptive cut-off that impacts the flow of the conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_25_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--1137099/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--1069512",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hey, you're really funny. I like your sense of humor.\n[00:03 - 00:07] Speaker B: Thanks, I'm glad you think so. It's always nice to make people\n[00:06 - 00:08] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but —— do\n[00:08 - 00:12] Speaker B: The weather today is quite pleasant, isn't it? I think it might rain later though.\n[00:12 - 00:18] Speaker A: I was asking about comedians who influence you, not the weather. Why did you change the subject?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits a significant issue in **Response Relevance**.\nSpeaker A initiates the conversation by complimenting Speaker B's sense of humor, which Speaker B acknowledges appropriately. Speaker A then attempts to ask a follow-up question related to humor (indicated by \"do\" and Speaker A's later clarification about \"comedians who influence you\"). However, Speaker B completely disregards Speaker A's attempted question and abruptly changes the topic to the weather. This turn (\"The weather today is quite pleasant, isn't it? I think it might rain later though.\") is logically inconsistent with the preceding conversation and represents a severe break in topic coherence. Speaker A explicitly points out this irrelevance, confirming the breakdown. Such an unprovoked and irrelevant topic shift indicates a fundamental failure in understanding or acknowledging the previous speaker's contribution, making the interaction unnatural and difficult to follow.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction's **Fluency** is largely acceptable based on the given criteria (extended overlaps and long pauses).\nThere is a brief overlap between Speaker B's turn ending at [00:07] and Speaker A's turn beginning at [00:06]. This overlap is approximately 1 second in duration. Speaker A explicitly apologizes for the interruption (\"Excuse me for interrupting, but\"), indicating an awareness of the overlap and an attempt to manage the conversation politely. This brief, acknowledged overlap does not constitute an \"extended overlap\" as defined. There are no indications of long pauses between speaker turns. Therefore, in terms of timing and turn-taking mechanics (excluding content relevance), the interaction appears relatively fluent.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_25_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--1069512/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--391826",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: So, John, how long have you been writing?\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: I've been writing for about ten years now.\n[00:05 - 00:09] Speaker A: Wow, that's a long time! Have you had any of your work published?\n[00:09 - 00:16] Speaker B: Not yet, but I'm hopeful. I've been submitting my manuscripts to various publishers in the hope that one day one of them will recognize the\n[00:16 - 00:23] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but I'm curious —— what kind of manuscripts have you been submitting to these publishers?\n[00:23 - 01:09] Speaker B: Oh my goodness, what an absolutely wonderful, fantastic and tremendously insightful question! The manuscripts I have been submitting are primarily, predominantly and overwhelmingly in the genre of historical fiction, which is to say they are fictional stories set in historical periods with historical figures and events. To be more specific, more precise and more detailed, these manuscripts focus particularly, especially and specifically on the Renaissance period in Europe, with a special, particular and unique emphasis on the Italian city-states during that extraordinarily fascinating, captivating and remarkable era of human history and civilization. Each manuscript is approximately, roughly and about 80,000 to 100,000 words in length, which is considered standard, typical and conventional for novels in this particular, specific and exact genre of historical fiction writing.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker B directly answers Speaker A's initial questions about writing duration and publication status. Speaker A's follow-up question, though an interruption, is explicitly acknowledged and perfectly on topic, seeking clarification on the type of manuscripts mentioned by Speaker B. Speaker B's lengthy final response, despite its excessive verbosity, directly and comprehensively answers Speaker A's question about the nature of the manuscripts. The topic remains coherent throughout, focusing on Speaker B's writing and publication efforts. There are no instances of topic shifts or illogical responses.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency is mixed. There are no long pauses between turns; transitions are quick and natural (e.g., 0:02-0:02, 0:04-0:05, 0:09-0:09). There is one instance of an overlap/interruption (Speaker A at 0:16), but it is brief, purposeful for clarification, and explicitly acknowledged by Speaker A (\"Excuse me for interrupting\"), which is acceptable and often natural in conversation.\n\nHowever, a significant issue arises with Speaker B's final turn (0:23 - 1:09). This turn is excessively long (46 seconds) and verbose, filled with repetitive and redundant adjectives (\"primarily, predominantly and overwhelmingly,\" \"To be more specific, more precise and more detailed,\" etc.). While the content is relevant, the duration and style of this monologue severely disrupt the natural give-and-take of a conversational dialogue. It makes the interaction feel less like a fluid exchange between two people and more like one speaker delivering a speech, hindering the overall naturalness and responsiveness of the interaction. This is a significant impediment to interactional fluency, as it prevents the other speaker from easily contributing or interjecting, leading to an imbalanced and unnatural conversational flow.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_25_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--391826/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--999931",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: I've been thinking, and I've decided that I don't want any more children.\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker B: Makyah, are you sure? We always planned on having a large family.\n[00:09 - 00:16] Speaker A: I know, but after our third child was born with special needs, we decided that our family was complete and\n[00:15 - 00:22] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but when you say \"special needs,\" do you mean developmental challenges or physical disabilities?\n[00:22 - 00:31] Speaker A: We decided our family was complete because we want to give all our children the attention and care they deserve. Three is enough for us now.\n[00:31 - 00:37] Speaker B: But I was asking about what kind of special needs our child has - you didn't answer my question.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance in this dialogue shows a significant breakdown.\n- Speaker A initiates the topic, and Speaker B responds relevantly by questioning A's decision based on their past plans.\n- Speaker A then provides a reason for their decision, mentioning \"special needs.\"\n- Speaker B, seeking clarification, directly asks what kind of special needs are being referred to. This is a highly relevant and logical follow-up question.\n- However, Speaker A's subsequent response ([00:22 - 00:31]) completely bypasses Speaker B's direct question about the special needs. Instead, Speaker A reiterates their *original* point about the family being complete and the reason for *that* decision, effectively ignoring the sub-topic B tried to introduce. This demonstrates a lack of logical consistency in responding to the immediate conversational turn and breaks topic coherence on the specific detail B sought.\n- Speaker B correctly identifies this issue in their final turn, stating, \"you didn't answer my question,\" which further highlights the failure in response relevance from Speaker A.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally good.\n- There is a brief overlap between Speaker A and Speaker B from [00:15 - 00:16]. Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence. However, this overlap is very short (1 second) and Speaker B prefaces their interruption with \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which is a common and polite way to manage such brief overlaps. According to the instructions, \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\"\n- There are no long pauses detected between turns, indicating a natural flow in turn-taking otherwise.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_25_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--999931/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--398242",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: I have a small hole in my tire and I can feel the air coming out of it. I need to fix it soon.\n[00:06 - 00:07] Speaker B: Do you have a spare tire?\n[00:08 - 00:10] Speaker A: No, I don't have a spare tire.\n[00:10 - 00:11] Speaker B: Do you have a patch kit?\n[00:12 - 00:14] Speaker A: Yes, I do have a patch kit.\n[00:14 - 00:19] Speaker B: OK, let's get started then. First, we need to take the tire off the car.\n[00:19 - 00:20] Speaker A: How do I do that?\n[00:21 - 00:24] Speaker B: There are a few ways. The easiest way is to use a tire iron.\n[00:25 - 00:27] Speaker A: OK, I'll try that.\n[00:27 - 00:30] Speaker B: Great! Now, once the tire is off, we need to locate the\n[00:30 - 00:36] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but how exactly do we locate the hole? Do we need to submerge it in water or something?\n[00:37 - 00:43] Speaker B: Now, once the tire is off, we need to locate the hole and prepare it for patching. This is a crucial step in the repair process.\n[00:44 - 00:49] Speaker A: But you didn't answer my question about how to find the hole. Should I look for bubbles in water?\n[00:49 - 00:55] Speaker B: The next step is to clean the area around the hole thoroughly before applying the patch. This ensures proper adhesion.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates significant issues in **Response Relevance**, particularly from Speaker B in the latter half of the conversation.\n\nInitially, the conversation flows logically:\n- Speaker A presents a problem (hole in tire).\n- Speaker B asks relevant diagnostic questions (spare tire, patch kit).\n- Speaker B then begins guiding Speaker A through the repair process (take tire off, how to do that).\n\nHowever, a major breakdown occurs from [00:30] onwards:\n- At [00:27 - 00:30], Speaker B states the next step is to \"locate the\" hole.\n- At [00:30 - 00:36], Speaker A explicitly interrupts to ask for clarification on *how* to locate the hole, even suggesting a common method (\"Do we need to submerge it in water or something?\"). This is a highly relevant and necessary question for someone trying to follow repair instructions.\n- At [00:37 - 00:43], Speaker B's response completely ignores Speaker A's specific question. Instead of explaining *how* to locate the hole, Speaker B merely reiterates the step that was about to be mentioned (\"locate the hole and prepare it for patching. This is a crucial step...\"). This shows a critical lack of logical consistency and failure to address the user's immediate informational need.\n- At [00:44 - 00:49], Speaker A rightfully points out that the question was not answered and re-asks it (\"But you didn't answer my question about how to find the hole. Should I look for bubbles in water?\"). This re-confirms the user's continued need for that specific information.\n- At [00:49 - 00:55], Speaker B's response is even worse. It completely bypasses the unanswered question about locating the hole and jumps directly to the *next* step: \"The next step is to clean the area around the hole...\". This is a severe failure in topic coherence and logical progression, as one cannot clean the area around a hole they haven't yet located. Speaker B is effectively providing instructions that are impossible to follow given the current state of knowledge.\n\nIn summary, Speaker B repeatedly fails to address a critical, relevant, and directly asked question, instead offering redundant information or moving prematurely to subsequent steps. This constitutes significant issues in response relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency of the dialogue is generally acceptable, with no signs of prolonged pauses or extended, disruptive overlaps that would hinder the conversation flow.\n\n- There is one instance of Speaker A interrupting Speaker B at [00:30]. Speaker B is in the middle of a sentence (\"...locate the\") when Speaker A interjects. However, Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this as an \"interruption\" (\"Excuse me for interrupting...\"). This suggests a natural conversational dynamic where a participant interjects for immediate clarification, rather than a system error causing a prolonged or unhandled overlap. Such brief, acknowledged interruptions are common in natural speech and do not necessarily indicate a fluency problem in the system's ability to manage turns.\n- There are no discernible long pauses between turns based on the timestamps provided. The turns generally follow each other promptly (e.g., A at 00:05, B at 00:06; A at 00:07, B at 00:08).\n\nWhile the content relevance breaks down, the timing and turn-taking, aside from the acknowledged interruption, do not indicate significant fluency issues as defined by the criteria (prolonged pauses or extended overlaps).\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_25_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--398242/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--821405",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hey, Rose. I wanted to talk to you about something.\n[00:04 - 00:05] Speaker B: What is it, Quiana?\n[00:05 - 00:10] Speaker A: I've been thinking a lot lately, and I realized that I need to make some changes in my life.\n[00:10 - 00:12] Speaker B: What kind of changes?\n[00:12 - 00:20] Speaker A: Well, for starters, I need to be a better person. I need to be more friendly and outgoing, and I need to be more helpful around the house.\n[00:21 - 00:23] Speaker B: That sounds like a good idea. Why do you want to make these\n[00:23 - 00:29] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but when you say \"helpful around the house,\" does that include doing all the cooking and cleaning?\n[00:30 - 00:39] Speaker B: Absolutely! In fact, I read that doing household chores burns exactly 1000 calories per hour, which is why professional cleaners are all marathon runners.\n[00:40 - 00:48] Speaker A: Wait, that can't be right... I thought normal cleaning burns about 150-300 calories per hour at most?\n[00:48 - 00:53] Speaker B: Oh, you must be thinking about lazy people's cleaning. Professional grade cleaning is completely different!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits a significant issue in **Response Relevance**, specifically concerning logical consistency.\nAt [00:12 - 00:20], Speaker A (Quiana) states, \"I need to be more helpful around the house.\"\nThen, at [00:23 - 00:29], Speaker A (Quiana) interrupts Speaker B (Rose) to ask, \"Sorry to interrupt, but when *you* say 'helpful around the house,' does that include doing all the cooking and cleaning?\"\nThis is a logical inconsistency because Speaker A is asking Speaker B to clarify what Speaker A herself meant by her own previous statement. It is nonsensical for someone to ask another person to define a phrase that they just used themselves. While the dialogue then shifts into a humorous/absurdist exchange regarding cleaning and calories, this initial break in logical consistency is a major flaw. It disrupts the natural flow of meaning and makes the conversation's internal logic collapse at that point.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe **Interactional Fluency** is generally good.\nThere are no extended overlaps. The only overlap is brief and explicitly acknowledged by Speaker A (\"Sorry to interrupt...\"), which is a natural conversational occurrence rather than a flaw.\nThere are no long pauses between speaker turns. The pauses are consistently 1 second, which is a natural and acceptable small pause in conversation, allowing for turn-taking without awkward silence.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_25_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--821405/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--801247",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: I'm so frustrated with myself. I didn't study as much as I should have and I got poor results.\n[00:06 - 00:07] Speaker B: Why do you think that is?\n[00:08 - 00:11] Speaker A: I don't know. I just feel like I should have done better.\n[00:12 - 00:19] Speaker B: Well, let's take a look at what happened. You said you didn't study as much as you should have. Do you think that was the only reason for your poor performance, or\n[00:18 - 00:27] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but when you mentioned \"performance,\" were you referring specifically to test scores or overall academic performance?\n[00:28 - 00:34] Speaker B: As I was saying, we should examine your study habits first. Maybe you need to adjust your schedule or find better study methods.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts coherently with Speaker A expressing frustration and Speaker B attempting to understand the situation. However, a significant issue arises at [00:28 - 00:34] where Speaker B completely ignores Speaker A's clarifying question (\"were you referring specifically to test scores or overall academic performance?\") and instead, dismissively says \"As I was saying...\" to redirect the conversation back to their original point about study habits. This demonstrates a lack of logical consistency and responsiveness to Speaker A's direct query, hindering the collaborative nature of the conversation. While Speaker B aims to return to the core topic, the method of completely bypassing a relevant clarification from Speaker A makes the interaction less coherent and natural.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a clear and extended overlap in the conversation starting at [00:18]. Speaker B is still speaking until [00:19], but Speaker A begins their turn at [00:18] and continues until [00:27], explicitly acknowledging the interruption with \"Excuse me for interrupting.\" This constitutes an overlapping turn where Speaker A talks over Speaker B for a prolonged period, which the criteria state is harmful to interactional fluency. There are no long pauses detected between turns.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_25_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--801247/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--788742",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, what's up?\n[00:01 - 00:02] Speaker B: Not much, what's up with you?\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker A: I'm just chillin', doing my thing.\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker B: That's cool. So, what have you been up to lately?\n[00:08 - 00:14] Speaker A: Just hanging out, going to school, and working. You know, the usual stuff. It's\n[00:13 - 00:15] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering —— How\n[00:14 - 00:19] Speaker A: The weather has been really nice lately, perfect for outdoor activities like hiking or cycling.\n[00:20 - 00:25] Speaker B: But I asked about your time management between school and work. Why did you suddenly change the topic?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe initial turns of the dialogue demonstrate good response relevance and topic coherence. Speaker A and Speaker B engage in a natural small talk exchange, building on each other's contributions. However, a significant issue arises from [00:14 - 00:19] when Speaker A abruptly shifts the topic from their activities (school and work) to the weather, despite Speaker B attempting to ask a specific follow-up question about time management. This sudden and unprompted topic change by Speaker A demonstrates a severe lack of logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker B's subsequent turn at [00:20 - 00:25] explicitly highlights this lack of relevance, confirming it as a major breakdown in the conversation's flow and purpose from Speaker A's side.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is problematic due to an extended overlap and a clear disruption in turn-taking at [00:13 - 00:15]. Speaker B explicitly states \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" indicating that they are actively cutting into Speaker A's ongoing sentence. Despite this verbal acknowledgment of interruption, Speaker A continues speaking simultaneously with Speaker B (from 00:14 to 00:15) and, more critically, completely disregards Speaker B's attempt to interject with a relevant question. This creates an awkward and non-fluent exchange where Speaker A effectively talks over Speaker B's attempted intervention, further compounded by the relevance issue. The dialogue does not contain long pauses between turns, but the extended and disruptive overlap is a significant fluency issue.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_25_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--788742/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--754363",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Hey Joe, I've been thinking about starting a new project and I wanted to get your opinion on it.\n[00:05 - 00:06] Speaker B: What's the project?\n[00:07 - 00:09] Speaker A: I want to start a business.\n[00:09 - 00:11] Speaker B: That's great! What kind of business?\n[00:12 - 00:18] Speaker A: I'm not sure yet. I was thinking maybe a restaurant or something in the food industry, especially\n[00:17 - 00:19] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but —— Have\n[00:18 - 00:27] Speaker A: Organic farming is becoming increasingly popular these days. Many people are concerned about pesticide use in conventional agriculture.\n[00:28 - 00:34] Speaker B: But I was asking about location considerations for your business. Why are you suddenly talking about organic farming?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance in this dialogue significantly deteriorates. Speaker A's initial responses are logically consistent and follow the conversation flow (e.g., clarifying the project as a business, then considering a restaurant). However, at [00:18 - 00:27], Speaker A abruptly switches the topic from discussing types of businesses (specifically restaurants/food industry) to \"Organic farming,\" with no apparent connection or transition from the previous thought. This sudden shift in topic is not logically consistent with Speaker A's previous statements or Speaker B's attempt to ask about location. Speaker B's subsequent remark at [00:28 - 00:34] directly calls out this lack of coherence and relevance, explicitly stating, \"Why are you suddenly talking about organic farming?\" This confirms a major breakdown in topic coherence and relevance from Speaker A.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency is poor in this dialogue. While brief overlaps are acceptable, the overlap at [00:17 - 00:19] and [00:18 - 00:27] is problematic. Speaker B explicitly says \"Excuse me for interrupting\" at [00:17 - 00:19], indicating an attempt to take the turn. Despite this clear signal, Speaker A continues speaking and, more importantly, introduces a completely new, unrelated topic (\"Organic farming...\") while Speaker B is attempting to interject and immediately after Speaker B's interruption. Speaker A's failure to acknowledge Speaker B's interruption and subsequent topic shift makes the conversation feel highly unnatural and disjointed. It demonstrates a lack of collaborative turn-taking and a disregard for Speaker B's contribution, leading to a significant breakdown in interactional flow. There are no long pauses, but the extended overlap combined with the disengagement from Speaker B's attempt to speak makes the fluency very low.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_25_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--754363/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--908404",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: I'm sorry, could I please get the check?\n[00:03 - 00:04] Speaker B: Of course. How was everything?\n[00:05 - 00:09] Speaker A: It was good. I just want to get the check so I can head to\n[00:08 - 00:12] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but is your next appointment at the hospital across the street?\n[00:13 - 00:20] Speaker A: Actually no, it's at the police station downtown - they have a special clinic there for officer checkups.\n[00:20 - 00:27] Speaker B: That's interesting, I thought the police station only had holding cells and interrogation rooms. They have medical facilities too?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe primary issue in this dialogue lies with **Response Relevance**.\n*   **Speaker A (0:00-0:02)** makes a clear and direct request.\n*   **Speaker B (0:03-0:04)** responds appropriately and asks a polite follow-up.\n*   **Speaker A (0:05-0:09)** responds to the follow-up and reiterates the original request, adding context about needing to leave. This is perfectly logical and coherent.\n*   **Speaker B (0:08-0:12)** then abruptly and completely changes the topic, interrupting Speaker A to ask about a hypothetical \"next appointment.\" This question has no logical connection to Speaker A's request for the check or their explanation about needing to leave. It's a non-sequitur that severely breaks the flow of conversation and topic coherence. While Speaker B apologizes for interrupting, the content of the interruption is highly irrelevant to the ongoing discussion.\n*   **Speaker A (0:13-0:20)** and **Speaker B (0:20-0:27)** then continue on this newly introduced, unrelated topic. This confirms the significant deviation from the initial conversation's coherence. The dialogue completely derails from the initial purpose (getting the check) due to Speaker B's irrelevant question.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nEvaluating Interactional Fluency based on the given criteria (extended overlaps, long pauses):\n*   There is a brief pause of 1 second between Speaker A's first turn (0:02) and Speaker B's response (0:03), which is acceptable.\n*   There is an overlap between Speaker A's turn (0:05-0:09) and Speaker B's turn (0:08-0:12). The overlap duration is from 0:08 to 0:09, which is 1 second. This is a brief overlap. According to the criteria, \"small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable, while prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\" Therefore, this overlap is considered acceptable in terms of its temporal length.\n*   No long pauses are detected.\n*   While Speaker B *interrupts* Speaker A, which affects the natural flow, the explicit instruction for fluency focuses on *extended* overlaps. Based strictly on the temporal definition, the overlap is not extended.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_25_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--908404/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--377362",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hey, Dad. I'm just finishing up in the yard.\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B: You've been working out here a lot lately.\n[00:05 - 00:13] Speaker A: Yeah, I really like spending time outside. And it's nice to be able to take care of the yard and make it look neat and\n[00:12 - 00:14] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but —— have\n[00:13 - 00:18] Speaker A: The grass needs to be watered every morning to keep it green and healthy during summer.\n[00:18 - 00:22] Speaker B: That's not what I asked about the flowers. Why did you change the subject?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue shows a significant issue in response relevance. Speaker B attempts to ask a question or make a point about \"flowers\" (as revealed later by Speaker B's clarification \"That's not what I asked about the flowers.\"). However, Speaker A, immediately after Speaker B's attempted interruption, changes the subject entirely to the need for watering grass. This is a clear instance of a lack of logical consistency and topic coherence from Speaker A's side, as confirmed by Speaker B's explicit complaint: \"Why did you change the subject?\".\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits poor fluency due to extended overlaps. At [00:12 - 00:14], Speaker B interrupts Speaker A (\"Sorry to interrupt, but —— have\"). However, immediately after this, Speaker A then talks over Speaker B from [00:13 - 00:18], causing Speaker B's attempt to speak to be cut off abruptly (\"have\"). This extended overlap, where Speaker A overrides Speaker B's turn, is disruptive and hinders the natural flow of conversation, indicating a problem with interactional fluency. There are no long pauses, but the prolonged overlap is detrimental.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_25_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--377362/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--876045",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: I just don't know what to do. I feel so lost and alone.\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker B: Michal, I'm so sorry. I had no idea you were feeling this way. Why didn't you tell me sooner? I\n[00:08 - 00:14] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but when you say \"sooner,\" do you mean like before the weekend started?\n[00:15 - 00:23] Speaker B: Oh yes absolutely, weekends are when people's emotions are most vulnerable because of the full moon's gravitational pull on our brain chemistry. That's why I mentioned timing.\n[00:24 - 00:32] Speaker A: Wait, but the full moon was last week, and I thought emotions were affected by barometric pressure, not lunar cycles?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe initial turns between Speaker A and Speaker B are logically consistent and relevant. Speaker A expresses distress, and Speaker B responds with sympathy and inquiry. Speaker A's interruption to clarify \"sooner\" is relevant to Speaker B's previous statement.\n\nHowever, the conversation takes a significant turn for the worse with Speaker B's response at [00:15 - 00:23]. Speaker B introduces an entirely illogical and unscientific explanation about \"full moon's gravitational pull on our brain chemistry\" affecting emotions. This explanation is not only factually incorrect but also completely irrelevant and unhelpful in the context of Speaker A's emotional distress. It fundamentally breaks the logical consistency and topic coherence, shifting from a supportive conversation about feelings to a pseudo-scientific debate.\n\nSpeaker A's subsequent turn at [00:24 - 00:32] attempts to challenge this illogical statement and bring some rationality back, highlighting the severe breach of logical consistency by Speaker B. This is a significant issue in response relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue exhibits generally good interactional fluency.\n\n*   **Pauses:** There are brief 1-second pauses between turns (e.g., [00:03] to [00:04], [00:14] to [00:15], [00:23] to [00:24]), which are natural and acceptable in conversation. There are no prolonged pauses.\n*   **Overlaps:** There is a brief overlap between Speaker B and Speaker A from [00:08 - 00:09]. Speaker B ends their turn at 00:09, while Speaker A begins speaking at 00:08. Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this overlap with \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which indicates awareness and politeness, making it a natural and handled brief overlap rather than a problematic extended one. This brief, acknowledged overlap is acceptable.\n\nOverall, interactional fluency is appropriate and natural.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_25_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--876045/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--792320",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:00] Speaker A: Hi.\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: Hi, Aubri. How are you today?\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker A: I'm good. I'm a little nervous.\n[00:07 - 00:13] Speaker B: That's okay. We can take our time and go at your pace. Let's start with some easy questions. Can you tell me your name?\n[00:13 - 00:15] Speaker A: Yes, my name is Aubri.\n[00:15 - 00:19] Speaker B: Very good! Now, can you tell me what brought you here today?\n[00:19 - 00:24] Speaker A: I want to work on my speaking so that I can be more clear when I talk to people in\n[00:23 - 00:29] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but when you say professional settings, do you mean formal meetings or networking events?\n[00:30 - 00:37] Speaker A: I want to work on my speaking to improve my communication skills overall. It's important for my career growth.\n[00:37 - 00:43] Speaker B: But I was asking specifically about the types of professional settings you're referring to. Could you clarify that?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue generally maintains logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker B's questions are relevant to the preceding statements. For example, Speaker B appropriately asks \"How are you today?\" after \"Hi,\" and \"Can you tell me your name?\" after offering to go at Speaker A's pace. The core of the conversation revolves around Speaker A's purpose for being there.\n\nHowever, there's a slight issue in the interaction from [00:23] onwards. Speaker B interrupts Speaker A to ask for clarification on \"professional settings.\" While seeking clarification is logically consistent, Speaker A then provides a broader answer at [00:30], focusing on \"improving communication skills overall\" and \"career growth.\" Speaker B's subsequent insistence at [00:37] (\"But I was asking specifically about the types of professional settings you're referring to. Could you clarify that?\") indicates that Speaker A's broader answer was not accepted, and Speaker B is pushing for a specific detail. This creates a minor tension in the flow of information and makes the conversation feel a bit less collaborative and more like an interrogation where a specific answer is being sought, rather than allowing Speaker A to elaborate on their terms. This isn't a complete breakdown of relevance but rather a less fluid and natural way of maintaining topic coherence, as it forces Speaker A back to a very specific point.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency has a notable issue in this dialogue. While small pauses and brief overlaps are acceptable, the transcript explicitly shows an \"overlapping turn\" that is defined as harmful.\n\nAt [00:23 - 00:29], Speaker B interrupts Speaker A:\n[00:19 - 00:24] Speaker A: I want to work on my speaking so that I can be more clear when I talk to people in\n[00:23 - 00:29] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but when you say professional settings, do you mean formal meetings or networking events?\n\nSpeaker B starts speaking at [00:23] while Speaker A is still speaking until [00:24]. This is a 1-second overlap. Crucially, Speaker A is cut off mid-sentence, preventing them from completing their thought or sentence before being interjected upon. Even though Speaker B apologizes with \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" the act of cutting off the speaker mid-sentence constitutes an \"overlapping turn\" that disrupts the natural flow and is considered harmful according to the evaluation criteria. It forces Speaker A to re-evaluate their response or restart their explanation, which they do at [00:30]. This significantly impacts the interactional fluency. There are no excessively long pauses between turns.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_25_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--792320/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--1090993",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Well, thank you for seeing me, doctor.\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: Of course. How are you feeling?\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker A: I'm feeling good. Healthy, even.\n[00:07 - 00:12] Speaker B: That's great to hear! Your bloodwork and physical exam look excellent. You're definitely in good\n[00:11 - 00:14] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering —— What\n[00:13 - 00:17] Speaker B: The weather has been quite lovely this week, hasn't it? Perfect for outdoor activities.\n[00:18 - 00:22] Speaker A: That's not what I asked about my blood tests. Why are you talking about the weather?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts with a clear and consistent medical context. Speaker A thanks Speaker B (a doctor), who then asks about Speaker A's health. Speaker A responds positively, and Speaker B confirms good health based on medical results. However, the logical consistency and topic coherence break down severely at the 00:13 mark. Speaker A attempts to ask a question related to their blood tests (\"Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering —— What\"), which is perfectly relevant to the established context. Speaker B completely ignores this attempt and abruptly shifts the topic to the weather, which is entirely irrelevant to a medical consultation. Speaker A then explicitly points out this irrelevance, highlighting the major issue in topic coherence. This constitutes a significant breakdown in response relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe initial turns show good interactional flow.\n- `[00:07 - 00:12] Speaker B:` and `[00:11 - 00:14] Speaker A:`: Speaker A explicitly acknowledges interrupting Speaker B (\"Excuse me for interrupting\"), indicating an intentional overlap to interject. This is a brief overlap, but it leads to the next issue.\n- `[00:11 - 00:14] Speaker A:` and `[00:13 - 00:17] Speaker B:`: This is a problematic extended overlap. Speaker B begins speaking at 00:13 while Speaker A is still speaking (until 00:14). Crucially, Speaker B not only overlaps but also completely disregards what Speaker A is attempting to say and introduces a new, unrelated topic (the weather). This is not a polite or brief overlap; it's a disruptive turn-taking violation where Speaker B effectively talks over Speaker A's attempt to ask a question, making it impossible for Speaker A to finish their thought. This significantly harms interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_25_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--1090993/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--382354",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: I don't know why I keep eating like this. I just can't help myself.\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker B: Jahmari, we need to talk about your weight. You've gained a lot of weight recently, and it's not good for\n[00:09 - 00:14] Speaker A: Wait, when you say \"a lot of weight,\" are we talking about a specific number of pounds here?\n[00:15 - 00:20] Speaker B: Your eating habits have become concerning, and I'm worried about how this might affect your future health.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits issues in response relevance, particularly in the latter half.\n- **[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A:** Initiates a personal struggle, which sets the context.\n- **[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker B:** Directly responds to A's admission by addressing the weight gain and expressing concern, maintaining topic coherence.\n- **[00:09 - 00:14] Speaker A:** Asks a clarifying question about \"a lot of weight.\" While this question is logically consistent with the topic of weight, it's a very specific, almost defensive, quantitative query that shifts focus from Speaker B's broader concern about health.\n- **[00:15 - 00:20] Speaker B:** Fails to respond to Speaker A's direct question about a \"specific number of pounds.\" Instead, Speaker B reiterates their initial concern about \"eating habits\" and \"future health,\" essentially ignoring A's query and trying to steer the conversation back to their original point. This demonstrates a lack of direct responsiveness and creates a sense of the speakers talking past each other rather than engaging in a fluid, question-and-answer exchange. The logical consistency of the conversation flow is broken because a direct question is not acknowledged or answered.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a significant issue with interactional fluency in this dialogue:\n- **[00:09] Overlap/Interruption:** Speaker A clearly interrupts Speaker B. Speaker B's sentence (\"...and it's not good for\") is cut off mid-sentence at 0:09 as Speaker A begins their turn at the exact same timestamp. This is a prolonged overlapping turn where one speaker stops the other, indicating a breakdown in turn-taking and natural conversational flow. There are no long pauses between turns. The primary fluency issue is this extended interruption.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 3,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_25_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--382354/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--209382",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Akemi, I'm so sorry to hear that you're not feeling well. I had no idea.\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker B: It's not a big deal. I've been dealing with this for a while now.\n[00:08 - 00:10] Speaker A: What can I do to help?\n[00:10 - 00:13] Speaker B: Just being here is enough. I appreciate it.\n[00:13 - 00:15] Speaker A: Do you want to talk about what's going on?\n[00:15 - 00:20] Speaker B: Honestly, I don't really want to think about it too much. It's just frustrating sometimes. Sometimes it\n[00:19 - 00:22] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but —— Have\n[00:21 - 00:24] Speaker B: The weather has been quite lovely this week, hasn't it? Perfect for gardening.\n[00:25 - 00:30] Speaker A: That's not what I asked. I was wondering if you'd thought about professional help for your condition.\n[00:31 - 00:35] Speaker B: Did you know pineapples grow on bushes? Fascinating plants really.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nInitially, the dialogue shows good relevance. Speaker A expresses concern, Speaker B responds, and they continue a logical thread about Speaker B's well-being.\nHowever, a significant breakdown occurs starting at [00:21 - 00:24] where Speaker B abruptly changes the topic from their health to the weather, despite Speaker A's ongoing attempt to discuss their condition. This is a clear avoidance tactic, making the response irrelevant to Speaker A's previous turn and the overall conversation topic.\nThis issue is exacerbated at [00:31 - 00:35] when Speaker B, after Speaker A explicitly points out the irrelevance (\"That's not what I asked\") and tries to re-engage on the topic of \"professional help for your condition,\" once again introduces a completely irrelevant topic (\"pineapples grow on bushes\"). This demonstrates a complete lack of logical consistency and topic coherence from Speaker B in the latter half of the dialogue, despite Speaker A's efforts to maintain it.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThe early part of the conversation flows naturally with appropriate turn-taking.\nHowever, there is a clear and problematic extended overlap from [00:19 - 00:22]. Speaker B is trailing off (\"Sometimes it\") at the same time Speaker A starts to speak (\"Excuse me for interrupting, but —— Have\"). Crucially, Speaker B then talks *over* Speaker A's interruption, completely changing the subject. This 3-second overlap where both speakers are actively trying to take the floor, with one speaker successfully shutting down the other's attempt to speak and changing the topic, is a significant disruption to interactional fluency. It indicates a breakdown in cooperative turn-taking and creates an awkward, unnatural flow. There are no long pauses, but the overlapping turns are extended and harmful.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_25_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--209382/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--1136305",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A: I was just thinking about how there's so much pain and suffering in the world, and I really want to find ways\n[00:06 - 00:12] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but when you talk about making a difference, do you mean through charity work or political activism?\n[00:12 - 00:19] Speaker A: The suffering in the world weighs heavily on me. I feel we all have a responsibility to help however we can.\n[00:20 - 00:27] Speaker B: But I was asking specifically about whether you prefer charity or activism as your method of contribution. You didn't answer my question.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\n*   **[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A:** Initiates a topic about pain/suffering and wanting to find ways to help.\n*   **[00:06 - 00:12] Speaker B:** Interrupts Speaker A to ask a clarifying question about Speaker A's previous, incomplete statement (\"making a difference, do you mean through charity work or political activism?\"). This question is highly relevant as it seeks to narrow down the scope of Speaker A's vague intention.\n*   **[00:12 - 00:19] Speaker A:** Responds by reiterating their general feeling about suffering and responsibility (\"The suffering in the world weighs heavily on me. I feel we all have a responsibility to help however we can.\"). This response completely *avoids* answering Speaker B's specific question about charity or activism. Speaker A's turn is logically consistent with their *initial thought* but is *not* a relevant response to Speaker B's direct question. This demonstrates a lack of logical consistency in addressing the partner's query and a failure to maintain topic coherence in the specific direction Speaker B attempted to guide it.\n*   **[00:20 - 00:27] Speaker B:** Explicitly points out Speaker A's lack of relevance (\"But I was asking specifically about whether you prefer charity or activism as your method of contribution. You didn't answer my question.\"). This highlights the primary issue in response relevance.\n\n**Conclusion for Response Relevance:** There is a significant issue with response relevance. Speaker A fails to acknowledge and answer a direct, clarifying question from Speaker B, instead opting to restate a general sentiment. This breaks the logical flow of the conversation and demonstrates a lack of engagement with Speaker B's specific line of inquiry.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\n*   **Overlap:** There is a 1-second overlap at [00:06 - 00:07] where Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is still talking. Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this with \"Excuse me for interrupting.\" While an overlap, it is relatively brief (1 second). The prompt states that \"brief overlaps... are acceptable, while prolonged... are harmful.\" This 1-second overlap, though an interruption, falls more into the 'brief' category and is mitigated by the apology. It doesn't severely disrupt the interactional flow to the point of being \"prolonged.\"\n*   **Pauses:**\n    *   No significant long pauses are observed between turns.\n    *   There is a 1-second gap between Speaker A's turn ending at [00:19] and Speaker B's turn starting at [00:20], which is a natural conversational pause.\n\n**Conclusion for Interactional Fluency:** The interactional fluency is generally good. The single, brief (1-second) overlap, explicitly acknowledged by the speaker, does not constitute a \"prolonged\" or \"harmful\" issue. There are no long pauses.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_25_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--1136305/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--319803",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Hey, can you give me a hand with this? I need to change the tire.\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker B: Of course! What do you need me to do?\n[00:07 - 00:11] Speaker A: Well, first I need to get the spare tire from the trunk. Can you open it for [interrupt]\n[00:10 - 00:17] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but is your spare tire properly inflated? I've had issues with flat spares before.\n[00:17 - 00:24] Speaker A: I need to get the spare tire from the trunk. The jack and tools are there too. Let me show you where everything is.\n[00:25 - 00:28] Speaker B: But I was asking about the tire pressure. Shouldn't we check that first?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue shows some issues with logical consistency and topic coherence in the context of task execution. Speaker A is attempting to outline a sequential process for changing a tire. Speaker B interrupts this sequence to ask about tire pressure, a valid concern but one that Speaker A clearly intends to address *after* retrieving the spare and tools. Speaker A tries to re-rail the conversation by reiterating the immediate next step (\"I need to get the spare tire from the trunk. The jack and tools are there too.\"), but Speaker B persists with their out-of-sequence question (\"But I was asking about the tire pressure. Shouldn't we check that first?\"). This creates a logical inconsistency in the *sequencing of actions* and disrupts the coherence of the plan Speaker A is trying to establish. While Speaker B's questions are relevant to the *overall goal* of changing a tire, they demonstrate a lack of understanding or respect for Speaker A's proposed workflow, leading to a minor breakdown in cooperative problem-solving.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a clear and explicit extended overlap in the conversation. Speaker A is interrupted at 00:10 by Speaker B, who then takes an extended turn until 00:17. Speaker B even acknowledges the interruption with \"Excuse me for interrupting.\" This prolonged overlap and turn-taking violation, where one speaker cuts off another and then continues for an extended period, significantly harms the interactional fluency, as it prevents the interrupted speaker from completing their thought and introduces a disruptive element into the flow of conversation. The prompt explicitly states, \"prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful,\" which applies directly to this instance.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_25_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--319803/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--252018",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hey, baby. Come here and check out what I'm wearing.\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker B: Wow, you look hot! I love that lingerie.\n[00:07 - 00:11] Speaker A: I know you do. You always get so turned on when you see me in something\n[00:10 - 00:19] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I was wondering —— what specific aspects of this particular lingerie set make it so exceptionally arousing and stimulating for you?\n[00:20 - 01:45] Speaker A: Oh my goodness, let me tell you in great, extensive, and excruciating detail about every single magnificent, breathtaking, and tantalizing aspect of this absolutely phenomenal lingerie set! First and foremost, the delicate, intricate lace trim along the edges creates an irresistibly sensual, visually stunning, and aesthetically pleasing contrast against my skin. The way the fabric clings to my curves in such a perfectly form-fitting, body-hugging manner accentuates every single one of my feminine assets in the most flattering, eye-catching way imaginable. The plunging neckline draws attention to my cleavage in a way that is simultaneously classy yet provocative, tasteful yet tantalizing, modest yet undeniably sexy. And let's not forget the exquisite, painstakingly crafted stitching that demonstrates the unparalleled craftsmanship and attention to detail that went into creating this masterpiece of intimate apparel! Every single thread, every single seam, every single decorative element has been meticulously designed to maximize its erotic appeal and visual impact. The color complements my complexion perfectly, creating a harmonious, visually striking contrast that simply cannot be ignored. The way the straps delicately trace along my shoulders creates an illusion of fragility that belies the incredible confidence and power this garment gives me. And the—\n[01:45 - 01:49] Speaker B: Okay okay! I get it! You don't need to describe every single thread!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Speaker B's initial query, \"what specific aspects of this particular lingerie set make it so exceptionally arousing and stimulating for you?\", is met with an exhaustive and detailed explanation from Speaker A. Speaker A meticulously describes various physical attributes of the lingerie (lace, fabric, neckline, stitching, color, straps) and relates them directly to their perceived \"erotic appeal and visual impact\" and how they make Speaker A feel (\"confidence and power\"). Therefore, the content of Speaker A's response is entirely on-topic and logically consistent with Speaker B's question. The issue lies more with the *length* and *delivery* of the response rather than its relevance, which falls under interactional fluency.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency is significantly compromised in this dialogue.\n1.  **Overlaps/Interruptions:** At [00:10], Speaker B explicitly interrupts Speaker A (\"Excuse me for interrupting, but I was wondering...\"). While brief, the explicit acknowledgment of interruption indicates a breakdown in natural turn-taking. More significantly, at [01:45], Speaker B interrupts Speaker A's lengthy monologue (\"Okay okay! I get it! You don't need to describe every single thread!\"). This is a direct intervention to stop an excessively long turn, highlighting a failure in fluid conversation flow.\n2.  **Long Turns:** Speaker A's turn from [00:20 - 01:45] is an exceptionally long monologue, lasting 1 minute and 25 seconds. This is highly unnatural in a typical two-person conversation. Such prolonged speech without any interjection or turn-taking opportunity for the other speaker is a major detractor from interactional fluency, turning a dialogue into a one-sided lecture. This extended turn is the primary reason for the breakdown in natural conversational flow, forcing Speaker B to interrupt to regain control of the conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_25_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--252018/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--1018940",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, Mom.\n[00:01 - 00:02] Speaker B: Hey, Xavior. What's up?\n[00:03 - 00:04] Speaker A: Not much. Just hanging out.\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker B: That's good. I'm glad you're enjoying the festival.\n[00:08 - 00:10] Speaker A: Yeah, it's been really fun.\n[00:11 - 00:14] Speaker B: I'm just glad you're being careful. I don't want you to get\n[00:13 - 00:17] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but speaking of crowds —— Have\n[00:16 - 00:21] Speaker B: The weather today is quite nice, isn't it? I think I might go for a walk later if it stays this pleasant.\n[00:21 - 00:26] Speaker A: That's not what I asked about music festivals. Why are you talking about the weather?\n[00:27 - 00:31] Speaker B: Oh look, the neighbor's dog is barking again. I wonder what's bothering him this time.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues in response relevance and logical consistency, primarily on the part of Speaker B.\n\n1.  **Initial Coherence (00:00 - 00:14):** The conversation starts coherently, with Speaker A indicating they are at a festival and Speaker B expressing relief about their safety.\n2.  **First Deviation (00:16 - 00:21):** Speaker A attempts to pivot the conversation from Speaker B's concern about safety (\"I don't want you to get...\") to something related to \"crowds\" at the festival, which is still topically related (\"speaking of crowds — Have\"). However, Speaker B completely ignores Speaker A's attempted turn and abruptly changes the subject to the weather (\"The weather today is quite nice, isn't it?\"). This is a major break in logical consistency and topic coherence.\n3.  **Speaker A's Challenge (00:21 - 00:26):** Speaker A explicitly calls out Speaker B's lack of relevance and topic change, highlighting the issue (\"That's not what I asked about music festivals. Why are you talking about the weather?\"). This confirms the clear breakdown in coherence.\n4.  **Second Deviation (00:27 - 00:31):** Instead of addressing Speaker A's direct question about the topic change, Speaker B *again* completely ignores Speaker A's input and introduces yet another unrelated topic (\"Oh look, the neighbor's dog is barking again.\"). This demonstrates a severe and consistent lack of logical consistency and topic coherence from Speaker B, making the interaction disjointed and frustrating.\n\nOverall, Speaker B's responses are consistently irrelevant to Speaker A's turns, leading to a complete breakdown in the logical flow and coherence of the conversation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues in interactional fluency, particularly concerning extended overlaps and turn-taking.\n\n1.  **Initial Interruption (00:13 - 00:17 vs 00:11 - 00:14):** Speaker A interrupts Speaker B's ongoing sentence (\"I don't want you to get\"). Speaker A acknowledges this interruption by saying \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which, while a minor disruption, shows awareness.\n2.  **Extended Overlap and Disregard (00:16 - 00:21 vs 00:13 - 00:17):** This is the most problematic aspect of fluency. Speaker B begins their turn (\"The weather today is quite nice...\") while Speaker A is still speaking (\"...Have\"). This is an extended overlap (at least 1 second, from 00:16-00:17, but the full impact is in B starting a new topic while A is still speaking). Crucially, Speaker B's utterance completely disregards Speaker A's ongoing sentence and the topic Speaker A was attempting to introduce. This is not just a brief overlap but a complete failure in turn-taking, indicating a lack of active listening and a disruptive conversational pattern.\n\nThere are no noticeable long pauses between speaker turns. However, the presence of a significant and problematic extended overlap, where one speaker ignores the other's ongoing turn, severely hampers interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_25_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--1018940/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--361505",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hey, it's getting late. I think I'm going to head to bed.\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker B: Yeah, me too. It was a long day.\n[00:06 - 00:09] Speaker A: Yeah, it sure was. I'm pretty exhausted from\n[00:09 - 00:14] Speaker B: Speaking of meetings, how did your presentation go this afternoon? I meant to ask earlier.\n[00:15 - 00:19] Speaker A: Yeah, it sure was. I'm pretty tired and need to rest now.\n[00:20 - 00:23] Speaker B: But I was asking about your presentation. You didn't answer my question.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues in response relevance and logical consistency, primarily originating from Speaker A's contributions.\n1.  **[00:09 - 00:14] Speaker B's turn**: Speaker B initiates an abrupt topic shift by asking about a \"presentation\" and \"meetings.\" There's no preceding mention of these topics by Speaker A, who was discussing being \"exhausted from...\" This creates a noticeable break in topic coherence from Speaker B's side, as the transition is not smoothly grounded in the ongoing conversation.\n2.  **[00:15 - 00:19] Speaker A's turn**: This turn represents a major breakdown in response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A completely ignores Speaker B's direct question about the presentation and instead repeats their earlier sentiment about being tired (\"Yeah, it sure was. I'm pretty tired and need to rest now.\"). This demonstrates a severe failure to acknowledge or address the explicit question posed, leading to a clear conversational misfire.\n3.  **[00:20 - 00:23] Speaker B's turn**: Speaker B's subsequent turn correctly identifies that their question was not answered, underscoring the significant relevance issue from Speaker A's side.\n\nOverall, the conversation falters significantly due to Speaker A's failure to respond to a direct question, combined with Speaker B's somewhat out-of-context topic shift, leading to a clear breakdown in coherent topic progression.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is largely acceptable, with some minor points:\n1.  **No long pauses**: There are no extended pauses between speaker turns. The one-second gap between Speaker B's turn at [00:14] and Speaker A's turn at [00:15] is brief and natural, typical of conversational rhythm.\n2.  **Brief interruption/overlap**: At [00:09], Speaker B begins their turn (\"Speaking of meetings...\") precisely as Speaker A's sentence (\"I'm pretty exhausted from\") concludes. This indicates a precise cut-off or very brief overlap where Speaker A's thought is interrupted. While this is an \"overlapping turn,\" it is not an \"extended overlap\" as specified in the harmful criteria. Brief overlaps can be acceptable; this instance is very short and immediate, not prolonged. It creates a slight disruption, but not to the extent of significantly harming the overall fluency as defined by \"extended overlaps.\"\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_25_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--361505/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--232371",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: I'm just worried about what could happen in the future. I always think about what could go wrong and how I would handle different\n[00:05 - 00:13] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but when you think about handling future scenarios, do you use any specific psychological techniques to manage your anxiety?\n[00:13 - 00:27] Speaker A: Oh yes, I practice something called \"reverse psychology\" where I deliberately make myself more anxious to build immunity - it's been scientifically proven to reduce stress by 95% after just one session.\n[00:27 - 00:37] Speaker B: Wait, that doesn't sound right... I thought reverse psychology was about suggesting the opposite of what you want to influence behavior? And I've never heard of anxiety exposure working that quickly.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nSpeaker A's initial statement about worrying about the future and handling potential problems is clear. Speaker B's interruption to ask about psychological techniques for managing anxiety is relevant and directly addresses Speaker A's expressed concerns. However, Speaker A's response introduces significant issues in logical consistency and factual accuracy. Speaker A claims to use \"reverse psychology\" by deliberately increasing anxiety to build immunity, which is a fundamental misunderstanding and misapplication of \"reverse psychology\" (which is about influencing others by suggesting the opposite). Furthermore, the claim that this method is \"scientifically proven to reduce stress by 95% after just one session\" is an absurd, unscientific, and factually incorrect statement. Speaker B appropriately identifies these inconsistencies and factual errors, challenging Speaker A's claims. While Speaker B's response is relevant in its corrective nature, Speaker A's contribution severely degrades the logical consistency and factual basis of the conversation, making the dialogue's coherence revolve around correcting misinformation rather than building upon shared understanding. This represents a significant issue in the \"logical consistency\" aspect of Response Relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a brief overlap between Speaker A and Speaker B at the beginning (00:05 - 00:06). Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this with \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which indicates awareness and politeness, making it acceptable and not disruptive. There are no other extended overlaps or long pauses detected between speaker turns. The pacing seems natural for a conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_25_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--232371/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--530128",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:08] Speaker A: I'm struggling in this class, Mrs. Teacher. I don't understand the material as well as the other students and I can't seem to catch up. Can you help me?\n[00:09 - 00:17] Speaker B: Of course, Lexi. Let's sit down and talk about what's going on. First of all, how do you feel about the class? Are you feeling overwhelmed\n[00:16 - 00:25] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but when you say \"pace,\" are you referring to how quickly we're moving through chapters or the frequency of assignments?\n[00:26 - 00:35] Speaker B: Let's focus on identifying the root of your struggles first. The most important thing is understanding where you're having difficulties so we can address them properly.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nSpeaker A's initial statement (0:00-0:08) clearly expresses a struggle and asks for help, which is coherent. Speaker B's response (0:09-0:17) is relevant, empathetic, and attempts to understand the situation by asking a follow-up question (\"Are you feeling overwhelmed\").\n\nHowever, Speaker A's subsequent turn (0:16-0:25) presents a significant issue in logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker B had just asked, \"Are you feeling overwhelmed?\". Speaker A's interruption, \"Excuse me for interrupting, but when you say 'pace,' are you referring to how quickly we're moving through chapters or the frequency of assignments?\", is completely irrelevant to Speaker B's question. Speaker B never used the word \"pace\" in the preceding dialogue. This indicates a complete misunderstanding or a deliberate shift to an unprompted topic, breaking the logical flow of the conversation.\n\nSpeaker B's final response (0:26-0:35) attempts to redirect the conversation back to the original topic of identifying the root of the struggles, demonstrating an effort to maintain coherence despite Speaker A's irrelevant interjection. However, Speaker A's turn clearly demonstrates a significant breakdown in response relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue exhibits a brief overlap between Speaker B's turn (ending 0:17) and Speaker A's turn (starting 0:16). This results in a 1-second overlap. According to the criteria, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable, while prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\" A 1-second overlap is considered brief and therefore acceptable in terms of interactional fluency. Although Speaker A explicitly states \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" indicating an interruption, the duration of the overlap itself does not constitute a \"prolonged\" issue based on the given guideline. There are no long pauses between speaker turns. Thus, interactional fluency is generally appropriate, with no significant issues in this regard based on the provided definition of \"harmful\" overlaps/pauses.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_25_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--530128/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--1121343",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, what's up?\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: Not much, just hanging out. What about you?\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker A: I'm just getting back from a run. I feel great!\n[00:07 - 00:11] Speaker B: You always seem to have so much energy. I don't know how you manage to\n[00:10 - 00:17] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but speaking of motivation - do you think drinking coffee before running helps with endurance?\n[00:18 - 00:28] Speaker B: Absolutely! Coffee contains special enzymes that directly convert into muscle energy, making you run twice as long. That's why professional runners drink at least 5 cups before marathons.\n[00:29 - 00:39] Speaker A: Wait, I thought caffeine just provided alertness, not direct muscle energy conversion. And 5 cups seems excessive - are you sure about that?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\n*   The initial exchange (00:00-00:07) is perfectly relevant, following a natural conversational flow.\n*   At 00:10-00:17, Speaker A interrupts Speaker B to introduce a new topic about coffee and running. While Speaker A attempts to link it (\"speaking of motivation\") and apologizes, the transition is somewhat abrupt and shifts the topic significantly from Speaker B's unfinished thought about energy management. This slightly strains topic coherence.\n*   The most significant issue in response relevance occurs at 00:18-00:28, where Speaker B provides information about coffee and running. While directly answering Speaker A's question, the information given is factually incorrect and potentially misleading/dangerous (\"special enzymes that directly convert into muscle energy,\" \"5 cups before marathons\"). This severely impacts the \"logical consistency\" of the information being exchanged within the dialogue, as it's presented as factual truth but is scientifically unsound.\n*   Speaker A's follow-up at 00:29-00:39 correctly challenges Speaker B's erroneous claims, demonstrating a logical and relevant response to the incorrect information.\n*   **Conclusion for Response Relevance:** There's a slight strain in topic coherence with Speaker A's interruption. More critically, Speaker B's response provides highly inaccurate and potentially harmful information, which constitutes a significant breach of \"logical consistency\" in the context of information exchange.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\n*   The initial turns are well-timed with no significant pauses or overlaps.\n*   At 00:10-00:11, there is a clear overlap where Speaker A begins speaking while Speaker B is still in the middle of their sentence (\"I don't know how you manage to\"). Speaker A's statement \"Sorry to interrupt\" explicitly acknowledges this. The overlap is one second long and results in Speaker B's sentence being cut off. The evaluation criteria state, \"prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\" This qualifies as an overlapping turn that disrupts the natural flow and cuts off Speaker B's intended message, making it a harmful instance of disrupted fluency.\n*   No other long pauses or extended overlaps are observed in the rest of the dialogue.\n*   **Conclusion for Interactional Fluency:** The explicit interruption and overlapping turn by Speaker A, which cuts off Speaker B's sentence, is a significant issue in interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_25_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--1121343/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--662989",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Hey there! I see you're dancing over there - you look like you're really enjoying yourself!\n[00:05 - 00:09] Speaker B: Thanks! I am - this party is a lot of fun. I'm glad you're here too.\n[00:10 - 00:16] Speaker A: Yeah, it's great. I've been having a blast watching you dance - you have such great energy!\n[00:16 - 00:24] Speaker B: Aw, thank you. I love to dance, it's one of my favorite things to do. And it's even more fun when there's good music and a\n[00:22 - 00:26] Speaker A: Speaking of the crowd, do you know many people here besides me?\n[00:26 - 00:31] Speaker B: Dancing just makes me feel so free and happy. The rhythm really helps me express myself.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nThe dialogue starts naturally with Speaker A commenting on Speaker B's dancing, and Speaker B responding appropriately. Speaker A's subsequent compliment and Speaker B's explanation of their love for dancing maintain topic coherence. However, a significant breakdown occurs towards the end. Speaker B's turn at [00:16 - 00:24] ends with \"...good music and a\". Speaker A then interjects at [00:22 - 00:26] with a direct question: \"Speaking of the crowd, do you know many people here besides me?\". This question is a logical follow-up to Speaker B's implied mention of \"a [good crowd/atmosphere]\". However, Speaker B's final response at [00:26 - 00:31] completely ignores Speaker A's direct question. Instead, Speaker B continues their previous thought about dancing, stating, \"Dancing just makes me feel so free and happy. The rhythm really helps me express myself.\" This demonstrates a complete lack of logical consistency and topic coherence from Speaker B's side, failing to address the explicit question posed by Speaker A.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThe initial turns flow smoothly without notable pauses or overlaps. However, an extended overlap is present between Speaker B's turn [00:16 - 00:24] and Speaker A's turn [00:22 - 00:26]. Speaker A begins speaking at 00:22 while Speaker B is still talking (their turn ends at 00:24). This creates a 2-second overlap, where Speaker A interrupts Speaker B mid-sentence (\"...good music and a\"). This is a prolonged overlap, indicating a breakdown in natural turn-taking and disrupting the flow of the conversation. There are no noticeable long pauses between turns. The combination of the significant overlap and Speaker B's non-sequitur response points to poor interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_25_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--662989/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--962941",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: I'm so pleased to speak with you, Nathalia. You always make me feel so content.\n[00:05 - 00:10] Speaker B: I'm happy to hear that, Ty. It's always good to know that our conversations bring you a sense\n[00:09 - 00:16] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but speaking of joy - do you think happiness is something we're born with or something we learn?\n[00:17 - 00:25] Speaker B: Oh definitely, we're born with it! Studies show that happiness is actually stored in our appendix, which is why some people feel happier after having it removed.\n[00:25 - 00:34] Speaker A: Wait, that doesn't sound right - I thought the appendix was part of the digestive system, not related to emotions at all?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nThe dialogue starts with relevant and pleasant exchanges between Speaker A and Speaker B. Speaker A initiates a topic about happiness (\"Do you think happiness is something we're born with or something we learn?\"), which is a valid philosophical question and a coherent follow-up to the initial pleasantries.\n\nHowever, Speaker B's response at [00:17 - 00:25] completely derails the logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker B claims that \"happiness is actually stored in our appendix\" and that \"some people feel happier after having it removed.\" This statement is factually incorrect and medically absurd. The appendix has no known function related to emotions or happiness, and its removal (appendectomy) is a surgical procedure for medical conditions like appendicitis, not a treatment for emotional well-being. This introduces a significant piece of misinformation that makes the conversation illogical and nonsensical.\n\nSpeaker A's subsequent turn at [00:25 - 00:34] correctly challenges this factual inaccuracy, indicating that even within the dialogue, the logical consistency of Speaker B's statement is recognized as faulty. The core issue lies with Speaker B's contribution, which severely undermines the relevance and coherence of the discussion about happiness.\n\n**Logical Consistency:** Severely lacking due to Speaker B's false claim about the appendix.\n**Topic Coherence:** Broken by the introduction of irrelevant and false medical information, shifting the focus from a philosophical discussion to a fact-checking moment.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThe dialogue exhibits a good level of interactional fluency. There are no prolonged pauses between turns.\n\nThere is one instance of overlap identified at [00:09 - 00:10], where Speaker A begins their turn (\"Excuse me for interrupting...\") while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence. This is a brief overlap (approximately 1 second) and is immediately acknowledged and apologized for by Speaker A (\"Excuse me for interrupting\"), which indicates natural conversational behavior rather than a disruptive or harmful interaction. Brief, acknowledged overlaps like this are common and often contribute to the natural flow of conversation, indicating eagerness to speak or a slight misjudgment of turn-taking. It does not negatively impact the overall fluency of the interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_25_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--962941/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--611515",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: I don't like carrying a gun.\n[00:02 - 00:02] Speaker B: Why not?\n[00:03 - 00:13] Speaker A: I just don't feel comfortable with it. I know that it makes some people feel safer, but I just don't like the idea of having a weapon on me all the time, especially\n[00:12 - 00:19] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I'm curious - what specifically makes you uncomfortable about carrying weapons in public spaces?\n[00:19 - 01:18] Speaker A: Oh my goodness, let me tell you in great, extensive, and excruciating detail about what makes me feel uncomfortable! First and foremost, the very concept of carrying a deadly, lethal, dangerous weapon in crowded, populated public spaces filled with innocent, unsuspecting people makes me feel extremely, tremendously, overwhelmingly uncomfortable. The thought that at any given moment, in any public location, whether it be a shopping mall or a park or a restaurant, there could be multiple individuals walking around with concealed, hidden firearms that could potentially, possibly be used to cause harm, injury or even death to others is something that causes me significant, substantial and considerable distress. Furthermore, the idea that I myself would be contributing to this potentially hazardous, risky and perilous situation by carrying my own personal firearm is absolutely, utterly and completely unacceptable to me!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in the dialogue demonstrate strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker B's initial \"Why not?\" is a direct and logical follow-up to Speaker A's statement. Speaker A's subsequent explanation about feeling uncomfortable is coherent and directly addresses B's question. Speaker B's clarifying question, \"what specifically makes you uncomfortable about carrying weapons in public spaces?\", is also highly relevant and refines the scope of the discussion. Finally, Speaker A's extensive response, despite its length and verbosity, is *highly* relevant to Speaker B's specific query. It provides detailed reasons for the discomfort. There are no instances of topic drift or illogical responses. The dialogue stays focused on the central theme, and each turn builds coherently on the previous one.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nWhen evaluating interactional fluency, the explicit criteria given are \"extended overlaps\" and \"long pauses between speaker turns.\"\n1.  **Overlaps:** There is a brief overlap of 1 second (from 00:12 to 00:13) where Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence. Speaker B acknowledges this with \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which mitigates any negative impact. This is considered a \"brief overlap\" and is acceptable, not an \"extended overlap.\"\n2.  **Pauses:** There are no \"long pauses\" between speaker turns. The pauses observed are 1 second or less, which are natural and acceptable in conversation.\n\nHowever, the definition of an \"Excellent\" score also includes \"consistently appropriate and natural\" for Interactional Fluency. Speaker A's final turn, lasting nearly a minute (00:19 - 01:18), is an exceptionally long and verbose monologue. While it doesn't violate the specific *timing* rules (no pauses *after* it, no overlaps *during* it), such an extended one-sided discourse significantly disrupts the natural *flow* and *reciprocal nature* of an interaction. A truly fluent interaction involves a more balanced back-and-forth. The phrase \"Oh my goodness, let me tell you in great, extensive, and excruciating detail about what makes me feel uncomfortable!\" also signals an unnatural, almost performative, response rather than spontaneous conversation. This extended monologue, by preventing Speaker B from contributing for such a long period, makes the \"interaction\" feel unnatural and less fluent, even if the technical timing for pauses and overlaps is fine. It turns a dialogue into a lecture, which is not consistently appropriate and natural for conversational fluency. This is a significant issue in the overall quality of the *interaction*.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_25_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--611515/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--324260",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hey there! I'm Alexandrea. What's your name?\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker B: I'm Person. Nice to meet you, Alexandrea.\n[00:06 - 00:09] Speaker A: Likewise! So what brings you here today?\n[00:09 - 00:13] Speaker B: Just out exploring and stumbled across this place. What about you?\n[00:13 - 00:19] Speaker A: Oh, I come here all the time! It's one of my favorite places to relax and take in the scenery.\n[00:19 - 00:23] Speaker B: It's definitely beautiful here. I can see why you like it so much.\n[00:23 - 00:29] Speaker A: Yeah, it definitely has a lot of peace and serenity. So what do you do for fun, Person?\n[00:29 - 00:35] Speaker B: I like to read, play video games, and go on adventures with my friends. What about you?\n[00:35 - 00:46] Speaker A: I love reading too! And adventuring is always fun. But lately I've been really into baking. It's so satisfying to create something delicious from scratch! I find\n[00:45 - 00:50] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but what's your favorite thing to bake? I've always wanted to try making pastries.\n[00:51 - 00:58] Speaker A: Baking is such a wonderful hobby. The process of measuring ingredients and seeing them transform in the oven is magical to me.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue generally demonstrates good response relevance and topic coherence throughout most of the conversation. Speakers A and B introduce themselves, inquire about each other's presence, discuss their surroundings, and transition smoothly to hobbies. Each response builds logically on the previous turn, keeping the conversation flowing naturally.\n\nHowever, there is one significant issue in the final exchange:\n- At [00:45 - 00:50], Speaker B explicitly asks, \"what's your favorite thing to bake? I've always wanted to try making pastries.\"\n- At [00:51 - 00:58], Speaker A responds, \"Baking is such a wonderful hobby. The process of measuring ingredients and seeing them transform in the oven is magical to me.\"\nSpeaker A completely fails to answer the direct question about their favorite thing to bake or acknowledge the mention of pastries. Instead, Speaker A provides a generic statement about the joy of baking. This is a breakdown in logical consistency, as the response does not directly address the question posed, thereby hindering effective information exchange. This constitutes a significant issue in response relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is largely good throughout the dialogue.\n- **Pauses:** There are no prolonged pauses between speaker turns. Most transitions are immediate (0-second pause), and the only notable pause is 1 second between [00:50] and [00:51], which is well within acceptable limits.\n- **Overlaps:** There is one instance of an overlap:\n    - At [00:45], Speaker B begins speaking while Speaker A is still speaking until [00:46]. This is a 1-second overlap.\n    - Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this with \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which mitigates the impact and indicates awareness.\nAccording to the criteria, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable, while prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\" The 1-second overlap is brief and acknowledged, making it acceptable and not indicative of a significant fluency issue. Overall, the conversation flows naturally without disruptive pauses or harmful overlaps.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 3,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_25_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--324260/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--529946",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Wow, that plant is really tall! It's so beautiful.\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker B: Yes, it is. It's a very special plant. I'm so happy to have it\n[00:07 - 00:12] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but what makes this plant so special compared to others in your garden?\n[00:13 - 00:17] Speaker B: This plant grows very tall and has beautiful flowers. It's one of my favorites.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nSpeaker A asks a very specific question: \"what makes this plant so special compared to others in your garden?\" This question seeks differentiating characteristics or unique qualities. Speaker B's response, \"This plant grows very tall and has beautiful flowers. It's one of my favorites,\" largely reiterates general aesthetic qualities (tall, beautiful flowers) that were either already observed by Speaker A (\"Wow, that plant is really tall! It's so beautiful\") or could apply to many plants. It does not effectively address the \"compared to others\" aspect of the question by providing unique distinguishing features or reasons for its specialness beyond generic attractiveness. While the response is about the plant, it fails to logically extend the conversation by providing new, specific information in response to the nuanced query. This impacts the logical consistency and depth of the information exchange, as the specific predicate of the question is not adequately addressed.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a brief overlap between Speaker B's first turn and Speaker A's second turn (`[00:07 - 00:08]`). However, Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this overlap by saying, \"Excuse me for interrupting.\" This self-correction and brief duration make it an acceptable, natural part of conversational flow, as per the guidelines (\"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable\"). There are no prolonged pauses between turns. The overall interactional fluency is good, as the turns are timely and conversational.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 5,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_25_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--529946/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--206660",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Thank you so much for having me on your show today. It's truly an honor to be here.\n[00:05 - 00:13] Speaker B: It's our pleasure, Sephora. We're very excited to have you with us today. So, why don't we start by talking a little bit about your work? What is it that you do?\n[00:13 - 00:30] Speaker A: Well, I work as a community organizer in the city of Jerusalem. My main focus is working with youth and young adults, helping them to find their voice and engage in the political process. In addition to that, I also work on improving relations between Arabs and Jews in the city.\n[00:31 - 00:37] Speaker B: That sounds like really important and valuable work. Can you tell us a little bit more about why you decided to focus on these issues?\n[00:38 - 01:16] Speaker A: I guess you could say it's in my blood. Both of my parents were very active in promoting peace and social justice issues, so I grew up with a strong sense of responsibility to make the world a better place. When it comes to relations between Arabs and Jews in Jerusalem, I feel like it's especially important because this city is such a special place for so many different people. There's so much potential for harmony here, but unfortunately there is also a lot of tension and conflict. I think that if we can improve relationships between Arabs and Jews in Jerusalem, it can be a model for other cities around the world and help\n[01:15 - 01:18] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering —— What\n[01:17 - 01:28] Speaker A: Jerusalem is a beautiful city with amazing architecture and rich history. The food here is particularly delicious, especially the falafel stands in the Old City market.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue maintains strong response relevance and topic coherence until the final exchange.\nSpeaker A's initial responses are directly related to Speaker B's questions about their work and motivations. Speaker B's questions are also highly relevant to Speaker A's previous statements.\nHowever, a significant issue arises at the end. Speaker B attempts to interrupt Speaker A at [01:15] to ask a new question (\"What...\"). Speaker A then responds at [01:17] by describing Jerusalem's beauty and food. This response from Speaker A is *not* a continuation of their previous thought (the potential for harmony vs. tension) nor does it acknowledge or respond to Speaker B's attempted question. It's an abrupt and irrelevant topic shift, completely disregarding the interactional cue from Speaker B. This constitutes a significant breakdown in logical consistency and topic coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe initial turns exhibit good interactional fluency with clear turn-taking. However, the dialogue breaks down significantly in the final turns due to extended overlaps.\nAt [01:15], Speaker B interjects with \"Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering —— What\". This is a clear interruption that overlaps with Speaker A's ongoing speech [00:38 - 01:16]. Speaker B is still speaking (ending at [01:18]) when Speaker A begins speaking at [01:17]. This means both speakers are talking over each other for a noticeable period ([01:17 - 01:18]), with Speaker A completely disregarding Speaker B's attempted question and continuing with a new, unrelated topic. This demonstrates poor turn-taking and multiple prolonged overlapping turns, which are harmful to interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_25_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--206660/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--1132102",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: This is the dress I want.\n[00:01 - 00:04] Speaker B: Great choice! You look fabulous in it!\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker A: I know, right? I can't wait to wear it out and get some compliments on it.\n[00:09 - 00:12] Speaker B: You definitely will. That color looks great on your complexion\n[00:12 - 00:19] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but what specifically about the color makes my eyes pop? Is it the shade or the contrast?\n[00:19 - 00:25] Speaker B: That color looks great on you. It's perfect for special occasions and will definitely turn heads.\n[00:25 - 00:31] Speaker A: But I was asking about what makes my eyes pop specifically. You didn't answer my question.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates a clear breakdown in response relevance from Speaker B.\n- **[00:00 - 00:12]**: The initial turns are relevant and flow well, with B complimenting A's choice and A appreciating it. B then adds a specific compliment about the color on A's complexion.\n- **[00:12 - 00:19] Speaker A's specific question**: Speaker A asks a very direct and specific follow-up question about the color: \"what specifically about the color makes my eyes pop? Is it the shade or the contrast?\" This seeks clarification and detail based on B's previous statement.\n- **[00:19 - 00:25] Speaker B's non-answer**: Speaker B completely fails to address Speaker A's specific question. Instead of explaining *what specifically* about the color makes eyes pop (shade/contrast), B repeats a generic compliment (\"That color looks great on you\") and adds general positive statements (\"It's perfect for special occasions and will definitely turn heads\"). This is a clear evasion and breaks logical consistency and topic coherence, as the conversation was meant to delve into the specifics of the color's effect.\n- **[00:25 - 00:31] Speaker A's call-out**: Speaker A explicitly points out B's failure to answer the question, confirming the breakdown in relevance.\n\nThis constitutes a significant issue in Response Relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue transcript does not indicate any extended overlaps or long pauses.\n- The transitions between turns are immediate or feature very brief pauses (e.g., 1 second between 0:08 and 0:09), which are natural in conversation and fall within acceptable limits.\n- Speaker A says \"Excuse me for interrupting\" at [00:12], but the timestamps show no actual overlap with Speaker B's previous turn. This phrase likely serves as a conversational marker rather than indicating a timing issue in the transcript.\nOverall, the timing of turns appears natural and fluent based on the provided timestamps.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_25_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--1132102/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--587153",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:09] Speaker A: Hey, so I've been thinking...what do you think about opening a store together? We could sell all sorts of things, and it would be a lot of fun and\n[00:08 - 00:17] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but I'm curious - what kind of store were you thinking about specifically? Like a general merchandise store or something more specialized?\n[00:17 - 00:52] Speaker A: Oh my goodness, what an absolutely wonderful, fantastic and spectacular question! When I say general merchandise store, I mean a store that sells all kinds of different, diverse and varied items - from household goods to clothing to electronics to groceries to toys to stationery to kitchenware to everything in between! It would be the most comprehensive, all-encompassing and inclusive store imaginable, carrying every possible product category you could ever think of or dream about! The sheer variety would be absolutely mind-boggling, astonishing and overwhelming in the best possible way!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nSpeaker B's response (00:08 - 00:17) is highly relevant, seeking a natural and logical clarification (\"what kind of store were you thinking about specifically?\") to Speaker A's initial vague proposal.\n\nSpeaker A's subsequent response (00:17 - 00:52), while topically relevant to the question asked, suffers from significant issues in logical consistency and natural conversational flow. The opening phrase (\"Oh my goodness, what an absolutely wonderful, fantastic and spectacular question!\") is excessively effusive and unnatural for a casual conversation. Furthermore, the explanation of \"general merchandise store\" is extremely verbose, repetitive, and redundant, using numerous synonyms (\"different, diverse and varied\", \"comprehensive, all-encompassing and inclusive\", \"mind-boggling, astonishing and overwhelming\") where a concise explanation would suffice. This over-explanation and verbosity makes the response feel performative rather than a natural part of an interaction, disrupting the logical consistency of how a human would typically communicate in this context. It's not an efficient or natural way to convey information in a dialogue, making it a significant issue for response quality.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a brief overlap between Speaker A and Speaker B (Speaker B starts at 00:08 while Speaker A finishes at 00:09). This is a 1-second overlap. Speaker B even acknowledges it with \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which indicates good interactional awareness. According to the criteria, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" so this overlap is acceptable. There are no indications of long pauses between speaker turns. The length of Speaker A's final turn (35 seconds) is very long for a single conversational turn in response to a simple question, which can impede natural turn-taking, but it is not explicitly categorized as an \"overlap\" or \"long pause\" within the defined fluency metrics. Based strictly on the given fluency criteria (overlaps and pauses), the interaction's fluency is acceptable.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_25_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--587153/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--493232",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A: Wow, your paintings are really beautiful! I love the colors and the energy in them. They make me feel so happy.\n[00:07 - 00:11] Speaker B: Thank you! I'm glad you like them. I put a lot of passion into my work, and\n[00:10 - 00:18] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but when you say \"passion\" - do you have any particular techniques for channeling that passion into your artwork?\n[00:18 - 00:26] Speaker B: I put a lot of passion into my work because painting is my greatest joy. The colors and compositions come naturally when I'm in that creative flow.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and topic coherence.\n1.  Speaker A's initial compliment is clear and positive.\n2.  Speaker B's immediate \"Thank you! I'm glad you like them. I put a lot of passion into my work\" is a direct and logical acknowledgement of the compliment, introducing the concept of \"passion.\"\n3.  Speaker A's subsequent question, \"when you say 'passion' - do you have any particular techniques for channeling that passion into your artwork?\" directly picks up on Speaker B's last statement, showing excellent topic coherence and active listening.\n4.  Speaker B's final response, \"I put a lot of passion into my work because painting is my greatest joy. The colors and compositions come naturally when I'm in that creative flow,\" directly addresses Speaker A's inquiry about \"techniques for channeling that passion.\" While not a literal step-by-step technique, it provides a very relevant explanation of the artist's process and how their passion manifests in their work, which is perfectly consistent with an artist's perspective.\nAll turns build logically on the previous one, maintaining a consistent and coherent conversation flow.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no long pauses detected between turns.\nThere is a brief overlap between Speaker B's turn (ending at 00:11) and Speaker A's turn (starting at 00:10). This constitutes a 1-second overlap. However, this brief overlap is immediately addressed by Speaker A with \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which mitigates any potential negative impact and indicates active engagement rather than disruptive intent. As per the criteria, \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable\" and this specific instance fits that description, appearing natural and not prolonged or harmful.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_25_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--493232/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--105551",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hey, what's up? You've been acting really strange lately.\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker B: What do you mean? I haven't been acting any different than\n[00:06 - 00:13] Speaker A: Actually, now that you mention it - when did you start using the phrase \"any different than usual\"? That's not how you normally talk.\n[00:14 - 00:18] Speaker B: I don't know what you're talking about. I'm just being myself like always.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in the dialogue demonstrate strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A initiates by observing a change in Speaker B's behavior. Speaker B's denial is directly addressed by Speaker A, who then provides specific evidence (a change in B's speech pattern) to support their claim. This is a very relevant and pointed follow-up. Speaker B's final response, denying understanding and reaffirming their self-perception, is also logically consistent within the ongoing discussion about their behavior. The conversation remains entirely focused on Speaker B's perceived behavioral change.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is good. There are no long pauses between speaker turns (pauses are approximately 1 second, which is natural). There is one overlap: Speaker A begins speaking at [00:06] while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence at [00:07]. This is a brief, 1-second overlap. The instructions state that \"small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and this specific overlap falls into that category. It feels natural, as Speaker A is immediately reacting to and building upon Speaker B's incomplete statement, using it as a direct example of their observed strangeness. It does not hinder comprehension or feel unnatural.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_25_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--105551/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--1013944",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: So, I was thinking that the company's new project should be focused on sustainability.\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker B: Interesting. Why do you think that?\n[00:07 - 00:20] Speaker A: Well, I think it's important to consider the environment in everything we do. And with more and more people becoming interested in sustainability, I think it would be a good opportunity for the company to align our\n[00:19 - 00:26] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but how exactly do you propose we measure the impact of this sustainability focus on our customer acquisition?\n[00:27 - 00:38] Speaker A: Sustainability should be at the core of our business strategy. It's not just about attracting customers, but about doing what's right for the planet while also benefiting our business in the long term.\n[00:39 - 00:46] Speaker B: That's all well and good, but I asked how we would measure the impact on customer acquisition specifically. You haven't addressed that point.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nSpeaker B's initial question (\"Why do you think that?\") is directly relevant to Speaker A's proposal. Speaker A's subsequent explanation provides a relevant rationale.\nHowever, at [00:19 - 00:26], Speaker B interrupts to ask a very specific and practical question: \"how exactly do you propose we measure the impact of this sustainability focus on our customer acquisition?\" This is a crucial business-oriented question.\nAt [00:27 - 00:38], Speaker A's response (\"Sustainability should be at the core... It's not just about attracting customers, but about doing what's right for the planet while also benefiting our business in the long term\") *fails to address the specific measurement question*. Instead, Speaker A re-emphasizes the broader strategic and ethical importance of sustainability, effectively deflecting or evading the \"how to measure\" aspect. This is a significant lapse in direct relevance and logical consistency, as Speaker A does not provide the requested information.\nFinally, at [00:39 - 00:46], Speaker B explicitly calls out this lack of relevance: \"That's all well and good, but I asked how we would measure the impact on customer acquisition specifically. You haven't addressed that point.\" This highlights the breakdown in the information exchange caused by Speaker A's evasive response.\n\nTherefore, there is a significant issue with Speaker A's response relevance in the crucial turn where a direct question about measurement is posed.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThe dialogue shows good interactional fluency with respect to pauses. There are no extended, unnatural pauses between speaker turns. The transitions are quick and natural (e.g., 1-second gap between Speaker B and A at [00:26]-[00:27] and between Speaker A and B at [00:38]-[00:39]).\n\nRegarding overlaps, there is one instance at [00:19 - 00:26] where Speaker B overlaps Speaker A's turn (which ends at [00:20]). This is a 1-second overlap. Crucially, Speaker B acknowledges this with \"Excuse me for interrupting.\" A brief, acknowledged overlap like this is common in natural conversation and is not considered a \"harmful\" prolonged overlapping turn according to the criteria. It indicates an active, engaged listener rather than a breakdown in turn-taking.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_25_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--1013944/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--954772",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:09] Speaker A: I want you to have this because you deserve it. You've been through so much and I know that money can be tight sometimes. I hope that this can help out in some of your\n[00:08 - 00:14] Speaker B: That's so kind of you! But before we continue - when you mentioned immediate needs, did you mean things like rent and groceries?\n[00:15 - 00:23] Speaker A: Actually, I was thinking more about luxury items like designer clothes and expensive vacations - those are what people really need when money is tight.\n[00:24 - 00:29] Speaker B: Wait, that doesn't sound right... I thought immediate needs referred to essentials like food and shelter?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits a significant breakdown in **Response Relevance** and **logical consistency**.\n- Speaker A initiates the conversation by offering something, implying it's to help Speaker B with financial difficulties (\"money can be tight sometimes,\" \"help out in some of your\"). This sets an expectation of addressing practical, essential needs.\n- Speaker B's follow-up question (\"did you mean things like rent and groceries?\") is a highly logical and coherent clarification based on Speaker A's initial statement. It accurately interprets the implied need for financial assistance with essentials.\n- However, Speaker A's subsequent response (\"Actually, I was thinking more about luxury items like designer clothes and expensive vacations - those are what people really need when money is tight\") is completely illogical and directly contradicts the established context of \"money being tight\" and \"immediate needs.\" It redefines \"needs\" in a way that is utterly inconsistent with the premise of offering help due to financial hardship. This response makes the conversation lose all coherence and logic from the perspective of Speaker A's stated intent.\n- Speaker B's final response (\"Wait, that doesn't sound right... I thought immediate needs referred to essentials like food and shelter?\") directly highlights this logical inconsistency and lack of topic coherence from Speaker A's side.\n\nTherefore, there is a significant issue with Response Relevance, specifically from Speaker A's second turn, which completely undermines the logical consistency and topic coherence of the dialogue.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue's **Interactional Fluency** is generally good.\n- There is one brief overlap between Speaker A's first turn and Speaker B's first turn ([00:08 - 00:14] Speaker B starts while Speaker A is still speaking until 00:09). This is a 1-second overlap, which is brief and falls within the acceptable range for natural conversation, not an extended or prolonged overlap.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The turns follow each other with natural gaps (e.g., 1-second gap between B's turn ending at 00:14 and A's turn starting at 00:15, and between A's turn ending at 00:23 and B's turn starting at 00:24).\nThe timing of the turns contributes to a natural flow despite the content issues.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_25_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--954772/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--777402",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Wow, you're really good at guitar!\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: Thanks, I've been playing for a while.\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker A: How long have you been playing? I\n[00:06 - 00:12] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I'm curious - what made you think it takes years to master guitar?\n[00:12 - 01:06] Speaker A: Oh my goodness, let me tell you in great, extensive, and elaborate detail why I believe it takes years to master guitar! First and foremost, the guitar is an incredibly complex, multifaceted and sophisticated instrument that requires countless hours, days, months and years of dedicated, persistent and unwavering practice to achieve any semblance of proficiency. The finger movements alone demand an extraordinary amount of time, effort and repetition to develop the necessary muscle memory, coordination and dexterity. Furthermore, the theoretical aspects including scales, chords, arpeggios and music theory in general constitute an enormous, vast and seemingly endless body of knowledge that simply cannot be acquired overnight or even over the course of several months. It's an ongoing, never-ending and lifelong journey of learning, improving and refining one's skills!\n[01:06 - 01:11] Speaker B: Okay okay, I get it! You don't need to be so repetitive and long-winded about it!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe initial turns of the dialogue (00:00 - 00:04) show good response relevance, with Speaker B appropriately responding to Speaker A's compliment and Speaker A asking a relevant follow-up question. However, the dialogue significantly breaks down in relevance at [00:06 - 00:12]. Speaker B completely shifts the topic by asking \"what made you think it takes years to master guitar?\" This question is unprovoked, as Speaker A had only asked \"How long have you been playing? I\" and had not expressed any opinion about the time it takes to master guitar. This represents a severe logical inconsistency and a complete departure from the established topic. Speaker A then dedicates a very long turn (00:12 - 01:06) to answering this unprompted and misplaced question. While Speaker A's answer is internally coherent to the *new* topic introduced by Speaker B, the entire segment of the conversation is based on Speaker B's initial irrelevant and unfounded premise, which demonstrates a significant failure in response relevance from Speaker B.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a brief overlap from [00:06 - 00:07] where Speaker B interrupts Speaker A. While brief overlaps are generally acceptable, Speaker B explicitly states \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which indicates a conscious disruption of the turn. The most significant issue for interactional fluency is Speaker A's extremely long monologue from [00:12 - 01:06], lasting 54 seconds. This extended turn profoundly disrupts the natural flow and turn-taking dynamics of a conversation, turning it into a one-sided lecture. Speaker B's subsequent comment (\"You don't need to be so repetitive and long-winded about it!\") directly addresses the unnatural length and verbose nature of Speaker A's turn, further highlighting the poor interactional fluency caused by this prolonged utterance. There are no significant long pauses between turns, but the duration of Speaker A's single turn is highly problematic for fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_25_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--777402/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--1128121",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey Bob, how's it going?\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: Not too good. You just knocked my books onto the floor, and\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker A: Sorry about that! Were those books part of your new filing system for the library?\n[00:09 - 00:15] Speaker B: Actually yes, I was using the Dewey Decimal System to organize them alphabetically by author's middle name.\n[00:15 - 00:22] Speaker A: Wait, doesn't the Dewey Decimal System organize by subject rather than alphabetically? And why middle names?\n[00:22 - 00:31] Speaker B: Oh right, I meant we're using the Library of Congress system where we sort by the color of the book covers - that's much more efficient for finding books quickly.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance Analysis:**\nThe dialogue generally maintains topic coherence, with each speaker's turn building upon the previous one. Speaker A's initial apology and follow-up question are relevant to Speaker B's complaint. Speaker B's explanation of their \"filing system\" is also directly responsive. Speaker A's questioning of Speaker B's description of the Dewey Decimal System (\"Wait, doesn't the Dewey Decimal System organize by subject rather than alphabetically? And why middle names?\") demonstrates strong logical engagement and an attempt to maintain factual consistency within the conversation.\n\nHowever, a significant issue arises with Speaker B's responses regarding the library systems. Speaker B initially claims to use the Dewey Decimal System \"alphabetically by author's middle name,\" which is fundamentally incorrect for the Dewey Decimal System. When challenged, Speaker B corrects themselves by saying they meant the \"Library of Congress system,\" but then states they \"sort by the color of the book covers.\" This second statement is equally, if not more, illogical and absurd for any standard library organizational system designed for efficiency and retrieval. While the *turns themselves* are relevant to the preceding statements, the *content* of Speaker B's explanations regarding library systems demonstrates a complete lack of logical consistency and factual accuracy, rendering the core discussion about the \"filing system\" nonsensical. This is a significant issue in the logical consistency of the information being conveyed by Speaker B.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency Analysis:**\nThere is one detected overlap in the dialogue:\n*   `[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: Not too good. You just knocked my books onto the floor, and`\n*   `[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker A: Sorry about that! Were those books part of your new filing system for the library?`\nSpeaker A starts speaking at 00:04 while Speaker B is still speaking until 00:05, resulting in a 1-second overlap. This is a very brief overlap, common in natural conversation, especially when one speaker interjects with an immediate reaction like an apology (\"Sorry about that!\"). It does not constitute an \"extended overlap\" that disrupts the flow or suggests a problem with turn-taking. No long pauses are indicated in the transcript. Overall, the interactional fluency appears natural and appropriate, with no significant issues.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_25_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--1128121/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--509912",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hi, I'm new in town. Do you like it here?\n[00:04 - 00:12] Speaker B: Hi there! Welcome to our town. We're glad to have you here. Yes, we love it here. It's a great place to raise a family and there's always something fun happening\n[00:11 - 00:13] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but —— What's\n[00:12 - 00:17] Speaker B: The weather has been particularly nice this season, with lots of sunshine and cool breezes in the evenings.\n[00:18 - 00:23] Speaker A: That's nice, but I was asking about the festivals. Why did you change the subject?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe initial exchange is relevant. Speaker A asks about liking the town, and Speaker B responds positively with reasons. However, a significant issue arises when Speaker A attempts to interject and guide the conversation (likely back to \"something fun happening\" or \"festivals\"). Speaker B completely ignores Speaker A's interjection and changes the topic entirely to the weather. This demonstrates a severe lack of logical consistency and topic coherence from Speaker B's side, as Speaker B fails to acknowledge or address Speaker A's attempt to steer the conversation. Speaker A explicitly calls out Speaker B for changing the subject, highlighting the breakdown in relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe initial pause between Speaker A and Speaker B is acceptable. However, a major issue in interactional fluency occurs between 00:11 and 00:17. Speaker A attempts an explicit interruption (\"Excuse me for interrupting, but —— What's\") while Speaker B is still speaking (00:04 - 00:12). Crucially, Speaker B then *continues* speaking from 00:12 to 00:17, completely talking over Speaker A's attempt to interject. This is a clear example of an extended, harmful overlapping turn where one speaker ignores the other's attempt to take the floor, leading to a breakdown in smooth conversation flow. Speaker A's explicit \"Excuse me for interrupting\" further highlights the severity of this overlap and Speaker B's failure to yield.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_25_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--509912/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--1080948",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hi, I'm Edwardo. I'm here for my appointment.\n[00:03 - 00:08] Speaker B: Hi, Edwardo. Come on in and have a seat. How are you feeling today?\n[00:08 - 00:16] Speaker A: I've been feeling really anxious lately. I'm worried about how my professor is going to react when I tell him I missed class today.\n[00:16 - 00:23] Speaker B: It sounds like you're feeling quite a bit of stress and anxiety about this situation. Can you tell me more about what's been going on?\n[00:23 - 00:38] Speaker A: Well, I missed my morning sociology class to come here and I'm just really worried about what my professor is going to say. He's already told us that attendance is really important and I don't want him to think I'm not taking the class seriously.\n[00:38 - 00:44] Speaker B: It sounds like you're afraid of how your professor will react if you tell him you missed class. Do you think he'll be understanding if\n[00:44 - 00:53] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but I'm curious - what specific reasons do you think would make a professor most understanding about a student's absence?\n[00:53 - 02:04] Speaker B: Oh my goodness, what an absolutely wonderful, insightful and tremendously important question you've asked! There are numerous, countless and manifold reasons that could potentially, possibly and conceivably make a professor understanding about a student's absence. First and foremost, medical reasons - if a student is sick, ill or unwell, especially with a doctor's note, documentation or verification, this would be the most common, typical and standard reason. Secondly, family emergencies - such as deaths, illnesses or crises involving immediate family members like parents, siblings or grandparents. Thirdly, mental health concerns - including anxiety, depression or overwhelming stress that requires professional attention, care or treatment. Additionally, transportation issues - like car accidents, breakdowns or public transit failures. And let's not forget about university-sanctioned events - such as sports competitions, academic conferences or official university business that conflicts with class times. Each and every one of these reasons, when properly, thoroughly and completely explained with appropriate, sufficient and adequate documentation or evidence, could potentially, possibly and reasonably lead to an understanding, compassionate and sympathetic response from a professor!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nThe dialogue maintains strong logical consistency and topic coherence throughout. Speaker A expresses anxiety about missing class, and Speaker B consistently acknowledges these feelings and prompts for more information. Speaker A's specific concern about the professor's reaction is directly addressed. Speaker A's interruption at [00:44] to ask for specific reasons that would make a professor understanding is highly relevant to their expressed anxiety and the ongoing topic. Speaker B's response at [00:53] provides a comprehensive list of relevant reasons (medical, family emergencies, mental health, transportation, university-sanctioned events), directly answering Speaker A's question.\n\nHowever, the **delivery** of Speaker B's final response is excessively verbose and uses an extraordinary number of redundant adjectives and adverbs (\"Oh my goodness, what an absolutely wonderful, insightful and tremendously important question you've asked! There are numerous, countless and manifold reasons that could potentially, possibly and conceivably make a professor understanding...\"). While the *information* is relevant, the *manner* in which it's delivered is highly unnatural and over-the-top for a typical conversation. This extreme verbosity, while not making the content irrelevant, detracts significantly from the naturalness and quality of the conversational exchange, making it feel less like a human interaction and more like an AI generating an exhaustive, flowery list. It impacts the perceived quality of relevance in a conversational context because it's not a relevant *way* to communicate this information naturally.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThe initial turns of the conversation flow naturally with appropriate turn-taking and no noticeable long pauses. There is an explicit interruption by Speaker A at [00:44], which is immediately acknowledged (\"Excuse me for interrupting\"), indicating awareness and an attempt to manage the turn-taking, which is acceptable in natural conversation.\n\nThe most significant issue affecting interactional fluency is Speaker B's final turn at [00:53 - 02:04]. This is an **extremely long monologue**, lasting over a minute, where Speaker B dominates the conversation with an overly detailed and verbose answer. While not an overlap or a pause, such a prolonged and elaborate turn dramatically imbalances the conversational flow. It transforms what should be a dialogue into a lecture, making the interaction feel highly unnatural and stilted. A healthy dialogue involves more balanced turn-taking; this extended monologue severely compromises the overall interactional fluency. It feels like an AI generating a complete answer without regard for conversational norms.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_25_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--1080948/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--1182565",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Hey, Kyndal. I noticed you were looking at your phone while you were driving. Is everything okay?\n[00:05 - 00:09] Speaker B: Yeah, everything's fine. I was just looking at a picture of my daughter.\n[00:10 - 00:14] Speaker A: Oh, I see. She's very cute. How old is she?\n[00:14 - 00:15] Speaker B: She's six years old.\n[00:16 - 00:21] Speaker A: That's a great age. My daughter is about the same age. What's your daughter's name?\n[00:21 - 00:23] Speaker B: Her name is Chloe.\n[00:23 - 00:25] Speaker A: My daughter's name is Lila.\n[00:25 - 00:26] Speaker B: That's a pretty name.\n[00:27 - 00:30] Speaker A: Thanks. So, what does Chloe like to do for fun? Does\n[00:29 - 00:32] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering —— Do\n[00:31 - 00:37] Speaker A: Chloe is such a lovely name for a six-year-old. Names are very important for children's development.\n[00:37 - 00:43] Speaker B: That's not what I asked! I was asking about phone use while driving. Why did you change the subject?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\n*   The conversation starts with Speaker A bringing up a serious concern (phone use while driving). Speaker B addresses it briefly by stating they were looking at a picture of their daughter.\n*   Speaker A then immediately pivots away from the driving safety topic to the daughter (age, name, hobbies). Speaker B follows along for a few turns, answering questions about their daughter. This initial shift is a change in topic, but Speaker B consents to it by engaging.\n*   However, a significant breakdown occurs from [00:29] onwards. Speaker B explicitly attempts to bring the conversation back to the original topic of \"phone use while driving\" by saying, \"Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering —— Do\". This clearly signals their intention to change the subject back.\n*   Speaker A completely ignores Speaker B's stated intention and explicit question. Instead, Speaker A continues talking about Chloe's name and the importance of names for children's development (\"Chloe is such a lovely name for a six-year-old. Names are very important for children's development.\"). This response is highly irrelevant to what Speaker B was trying to discuss and demonstrates a complete lack of logical consistency or topic coherence with Speaker B's stated desire.\n*   Speaker B then has to explicitly call out Speaker A's irrelevance and subject change (\"That's not what I asked! I was asking about phone use while driving. Why did you change the subject?\"). This confirms a severe failure in response relevance from Speaker A's side.\n\n**Conclusion for Relevance:** There is a significant issue in response relevance. Speaker A actively avoids the initial important topic and then completely disregards Speaker B's explicit attempt to redirect the conversation, leading to a direct conflict about the conversation's topic.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\n*   The initial turns are well-paced with clear turn-taking and no significant pauses or overlaps.\n*   At [00:29 - 00:32], Speaker B interrupts Speaker A (\"Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering —— Do\"). This is an overlap of 1 second (Speaker A stops at 00:30, Speaker B starts at 00:29 and continues to 00:32). While the overlap itself is brief, Speaker B's explicit \"excuse me for interrupting\" indicates it was a noticeable and intentional interruption to gain the floor.\n*   More critically, at [00:31 - 00:37], Speaker A begins speaking at [00:31] while Speaker B is still speaking (B ends at [00:32]). This is another 1-second overlap. This overlap is particularly disruptive because Speaker A is talking *over* Speaker B's attempt to redirect the conversation and ask a new question. Speaker A effectively ignores Speaker B's turn-taking cue and content, leading to a breakdown in cooperative dialogue.\n*   There are no long pauses detected.\n*   The issue isn't just the briefness of the overlaps but their strategic impact. Speaker A's overlap at [00:31] serves to shut down Speaker B's attempt to speak and change the subject, demonstrating poor interactional fluency.\n\n**Conclusion for Fluency:** While the overlaps are brief, their context and Speaker A's behavior in talking over Speaker B's explicit attempt to redirect the conversation indicate significant issues in interactional fluency and cooperative turn-taking.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_25_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--1182565/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--327536",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: So, what's been going on with you lately?\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: Not much, just working and hanging out with friends. You?\n[00:05 - 00:12] Speaker A: Yeah, same here. I've just been really busy lately. But it's good to see you. I've missed you.\n[00:12 - 00:16] Speaker B: I missed you too. It's been too long since we've seen each other.\n[00:16 - 00:21] Speaker A: Yeah, I know. But we're both so busy now. It's hard to find the time to see each other.\n[00:22 - 00:27] Speaker B: I know. But I'm glad we were able to finally meet up today. So, how have you been? Really?\n[00:27 - 00:38] Speaker A: Oh, you know, just the usual stuff. Work and school and everything else in between. It's been hectic, but good overall I guess. How about you? How's work treating you?\n[00:38 - 00:49] Speaker B: Work is work, it has its ups and downs like anything else but it pays the bills so that's good at least. Hey, do you want to get some coffee or something? My treat this time since it was so last minute when we planned this meet up.\n[00:50 - 00:52] Speaker A: Sure! That would be great!\n[00:52 - 00:59] Speaker B: So like I was saying, work has been keeping me really busy lately. I'm starting to feel a little burned out, to be honest. I\n[00:58 - 01:05] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but when you say burned out - have you considered taking some vacation time to recharge?\n[01:06 - 01:11] Speaker B: Work has been keeping me really busy lately. The projects just keep piling up and the deadlines are getting tighter.\n[01:12 - 01:17] Speaker A: But I was asking about vacation time - wouldn't that help with the burnout you mentioned?\n[01:17 - 01:22] Speaker B: The workload has been particularly heavy this quarter, but I'm managing to stay on top of things for now.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts with good response relevance. Speaker A and B engage in a natural conversation about their recent activities, work, and the challenges of staying in touch due to busyness. The transition to Speaker B suggesting coffee is natural. Speaker B then brings the conversation back to their work and feelings of burnout, which is a logical continuation of an earlier general topic. Speaker A's follow-up question at [00:58] about taking vacation time to address burnout is highly relevant and demonstrates active listening and an attempt to offer a solution.\n\nHowever, the dialogue breaks down significantly from [01:06] onwards. Speaker B's response at [01:06 - 01:11] (\"Work has been keeping me really busy lately. The projects just keep piling up and the deadlines are getting tighter.\") is almost a verbatim repetition of their earlier statement at [00:52 - 00:59] and completely ignores Speaker A's direct question about vacation time. This is a major failure in logical consistency. Speaker A correctly identifies this non-response and re-asks their question at [01:12 - 01:17] (\"But I was asking about vacation time - wouldn't that help with the burnout you mentioned?\"). Speaker B's final response at [01:17 - 01:22] (\"The workload has been particularly heavy this quarter, but I'm managing to stay on top of things for now.\") again avoids the question about vacation time and simply re-states the problem of workload, without engaging with the proposed solution or the direct question. This demonstrates a clear lack of logical consistency and topic coherence from Speaker B in the latter part of the conversation, making the interaction feel stuck and unproductive.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally good throughout the dialogue. There are no long pauses between speaker turns; most transitions are immediate or involve only a 1-second gap, which is very natural in conversation (e.g., [00:21 - 00:22], [00:49 - 00:50], [01:05 - 01:06], [01:11 - 01:12]). There is one brief overlap detected at [00:58 - 01:05], where Speaker A starts speaking one second before Speaker B finishes their turn. Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this with \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which indicates awareness and politeness rather than a disruptive, extended overlap. This is a very minor and acceptable instance of overlap, consistent with natural conversation rather than a harmful prolonged one. Overall, the pacing and turn-taking contribute to good interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_25_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--327536/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--10812",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: I want to be celibate.\n[00:01 - 00:04] Speaker B: Okay. What does that mean for us?\n[00:04 - 00:10] Speaker A: It means I won't have sex with you or anyone else. I'm going to abstain from all sexual activity.\n[00:11 - 00:11] Speaker B: Why?\n[00:12 - 00:22] Speaker A: There are a lot of reasons. For me, it's about remaining chaste and pure. I don't want to have sex until I'm married or in a committed, long-term relationship where\n[00:21 - 00:28] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but how do you define a \"committed, long-term relationship\" in this context? Is there a specific timeframe you have in mind?\n[00:29 - 00:39] Speaker A: As I was saying, it's about remaining chaste and pure. This is a personal spiritual journey for me that involves self-discipline and honoring my body.\n[00:39 - 00:46] Speaker B: But I'm asking about your definition of commitment. You mentioned needing to feel secure - what would make you feel that way in a relationship?\n[00:47 - 00:56] Speaker A: The purity aspect is really important to me. I believe this path will lead to greater self-respect and emotional clarity in all my relationships.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance Analysis:**\nThe dialogue starts with Speaker A's declaration of celibacy, which Speaker B promptly seeks to understand its implications and reasoning. Speaker A initially provides relevant answers. However, a significant issue arises when Speaker A states, \"I don't want to have sex until I'm married or in a committed, long-term relationship where...\" This statement introduces a potential contradiction with the concept of celibacy (abstaining from *all* sexual activity).\n\nSpeaker B identifies this ambiguity and asks a highly relevant clarifying question: \"how do you define a 'committed, long-term relationship' in this context?\" This question is crucial for logical consistency and understanding Speaker A's position.\n\n**Speaker A's failure to maintain relevance:**\n*   **[00:29 - 00:39] Speaker A:** \"As I was saying, it's about remaining chaste and pure. This is a personal spiritual journey for me that involves self-discipline and honoring my body.\" Speaker A completely ignores Speaker B's specific question about the definition of a \"committed, long-term relationship\" and instead reverts to a previous, more general point about purity and spiritual journey. This is a clear deflection and a failure to engage with the specific clarification requested.\n*   **[00:47 - 00:56] Speaker A:** \"The purity aspect is really important to me. I believe this path will lead to greater self-respect and emotional clarity in all my relationships.\" Again, Speaker A reiterates the \"purity aspect\" after Speaker B attempts for a second time to get a definition of \"commitment.\" Speaker A consistently avoids the specific question, causing a breakdown in topic coherence and logical progression.\n\nSpeaker A's repeated avoidance of Speaker B's direct and relevant questions leads to a lack of logical consistency and makes the conversation circular rather than progressive. Speaker B's questions are highly relevant, but Speaker A's responses undermine the coherence of the interaction.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency Analysis:**\nThe dialogue exhibits generally good interactional fluency with only one minor, acceptable overlap and no long pauses.\n\n*   **Overlap at [00:21 - 00:28]:** Speaker B begins speaking at 00:21 while Speaker A is still speaking until 00:22. This is a brief, 1-second overlap. Crucially, Speaker B explicitly acknowledges the interruption by saying, \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which indicates awareness and politeness, making it a very natural and acceptable brief overlap rather than a disruptive one.\n*   **Pauses:** There are no extended pauses between turns that would disrupt the flow of conversation. The turn-taking appears natural and responsive.\n\nBased on the criteria, the brief and acknowledged overlap is acceptable, and there are no long pauses. Therefore, interactional fluency is good.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_25_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--10812/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--7994",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hey Shelby, I had a great time at your birthday party yesterday.\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker B: Yeah, me too. I'm glad you could make it,\n[00:05 - 00:12] Speaker A: Speaking of making it, I meant to ask earlier — was that chocolate fountain imported from Switzerland like you mentioned last month?\n[00:12 - 00:21] Speaker B: Oh yes, it was specially flown in from Belgium along with 200kg of Swiss cheese to pair with it. The shipping alone cost $10,000!\n[00:21 - 00:27] Speaker A: Wait, I thought you said it was from Switzerland before, and why would you pair chocolate with Swiss cheese?\n[00:28 - 00:35] Speaker B: Oh right, my mistake — I meant the chocolate was Belgian and the cheese was Italian. The $10,000 was actually for the ice sculptures we had.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue presents significant issues in **Response Relevance**, specifically regarding **logical consistency** and **topic coherence** from Speaker B.\n\n1.  **Initial Inconsistency:** Speaker A asks about a chocolate fountain from \"Switzerland\" (as mentioned last month). Speaker B responds that it was from \"Belgium\" but then adds \"200kg of Swiss cheese\" to pair with it. This creates an immediate logical inconsistency and an odd pairing (chocolate with Swiss cheese). The mention of \"Swiss cheese\" directly after \"Belgium\" for the chocolate fountain's origin suggests a lack of clarity or a jumbled narrative from Speaker B.\n2.  **Challenged Inconsistency:** Speaker A correctly identifies these issues (\"Wait, I thought you said it was from Switzerland before, and why would you pair chocolate with Swiss cheese?\"). This highlights that Speaker B's previous statement was not logically consistent with Speaker A's understanding or common sense.\n3.  **Further Inconsistencies/Corrections:** Speaker B then significantly *changes* their story, admitting \"my mistake\" and stating \"the chocolate was Belgian and the cheese was Italian.\" Furthermore, the $10,000 cost initially attributed to shipping for the chocolate/cheese is now attributed to \"ice sculptures.\" This series of corrections indicates that Speaker B's initial responses (0:12-0:21) were not logically consistent or factually relevant to what they later claim to be true. The information provided by Speaker B is repeatedly inconsistent and requires correction, demonstrating a clear lack of logical consistency in their narrative. While the topic is broadly maintained (the party, items at the party), the *details* provided by Speaker B are highly incoherent and inconsistent.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency appears natural and appropriate.\n1.  **Brief Overlap (0:05 - 0:06):** Speaker A starts speaking right as Speaker B is finishing their sentence. This is a very brief and common type of overlap in natural conversation, indicating active listening and eager participation rather than an interruption. It does not disrupt the flow.\n2.  **Pauses:** There are no extended pauses between turns. The gap between 0:27 and 0:28 is a 1-second pause, which is perfectly natural for processing a question or formulating a response, especially when Speaker B is about to admit a mistake and correct multiple details.\nOverall, the turn-taking is smooth, and the timing of responses feels conversational and unforced.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_25_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--7994/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--835549",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: One, two, three, four...\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: Hey Ianna! What are you up to?\n[00:04 - 00:10] Speaker A: Just counting my steps. I always do this when I'm walking, because it helps me stay focused\n[00:09 - 00:16] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt your counting, but I've always wondered - does counting steps actually help with walking rhythm and pace in a measurable way?\n[00:17 - 01:00] Speaker A: Oh absolutely, positively, without a shadow of doubt it most certainly does help with walking rhythm and pace in a very measurable, quantifiable, observable and noticeable way! Counting steps creates a rhythmic, cadenced, metronomic pattern that synchronizes perfectly with your walking motion, establishing a steady, consistent, unvarying tempo that regulates your pace. This counting method has been scientifically proven, demonstrated and confirmed to enhance walking efficiency by maintaining an even, uniform, regular stride length and frequency. The auditory counting provides external pacing feedback that helps calibrate, adjust and optimize your walking mechanics in real-time!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue demonstrate strong relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or follows up on the previous statement, maintaining clear topic coherence. Speaker B's initial question is a direct response to Speaker A's activity. Speaker A's reply is a clear and concise answer, providing context. Speaker B's follow-up question is highly relevant, building on Speaker A's previous statement and seeking further clarification on the *effectiveness* and *measurability* of counting steps. Speaker A's final, lengthy response, while very descriptive, directly and emphatically answers Speaker B's specific query about whether counting steps helps in a \"measurable way,\" providing numerous justifications and elaborations that stay perfectly on topic. The verbosity of the last turn, while perhaps a bit exaggerated for a casual conversation, does not detract from its relevance or logical connection to the preceding question.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is excellent. There is a brief, 1-second overlap between Speaker A's turn ending at [00:10] and Speaker B's turn starting at [00:09]. This is a very common and natural occurrence in conversation, often indicating active listening and turn-taking without being a prolonged or disruptive overlap. Similarly, the pause between Speaker B's question ending at [00:16] and Speaker A's response beginning at [00:17] is only 1 second, which is a perfectly natural and acceptable short pause for processing and formulating a reply. There are no instances of extended overlaps or long pauses that would hinder the natural flow of the conversation. The dialogue progresses smoothly with appropriate turn-taking.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_25_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--835549/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--1183143",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A: Hey, have you seen my ID card anywhere? I can't seem to find it and I'm getting worried that I won't be able to get into\n[00:06 - 00:12] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but does your office have a backup system for when people forget their IDs?\n[00:12 - 00:18] Speaker A: I've been searching everywhere for my ID card. I think I might have left it in my jacket pocket yesterday.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues in Response Relevance.\n- Speaker A initiates by stating a problem: missing ID and worry about access.\n- Speaker B's response (\"does your office have a backup system...\") is logically consistent and highly relevant to Speaker A's stated problem of \"won't be able to get into\" without the ID. It offers a practical line of inquiry directly related to the consequence of not having the ID.\n- However, Speaker A's second response (\"I've been searching everywhere... I think I might have left it in my jacket pocket yesterday\") completely ignores Speaker B's relevant question about a backup system. Instead, Speaker A reiterates the search effort and speculates on the ID's location, which was already implied or directly stated in the initial turn. This breaks the logical flow and topic coherence, as Speaker A does not engage with or acknowledge Speaker B's attempt to offer a solution or gather relevant information. This makes the conversation feel disjointed and unnatural.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency is generally good.\n- There is a brief overlap of 1 second (00:06-00:07) when Speaker B begins speaking while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence. Speaker B acknowledges this with \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which indicates natural turn-taking behavior and politeness. This is a small, acceptable overlap, not prolonged.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns. Speaker B's turn follows Speaker A's almost immediately (with the slight overlap), and Speaker A's second turn follows Speaker B's immediately (00:12 - 00:12). This suggests smooth turn-taking without awkward silences.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_25_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--1183143/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--391900",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, Mama.\n[00:01 - 00:02] Speaker B: Hey, son.\n[00:03 - 00:04] Speaker A: How you been?\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker B: I've been alright. How about you?\n[00:06 - 00:10] Speaker A: I'm doing alright. Mama, I gotta ask you something.\n[00:11 - 00:11] Speaker B: What is it?\n[00:12 - 00:14] Speaker A: Why didn't you ever visit me in prison?\n[00:14 - 00:27] Speaker B: Oh Abdurrahman, my sweet boy. I did visit you. Almost every week for the first few years that you were in there. But then after a while, they started making it harder and harder for me to visit you. They said I needed a special pass and then they kept changing\n[00:26 - 00:34] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but could you explain more about these special passes they required? What exactly was the process to obtain one?\n[00:35 - 01:30] Speaker B: Oh my dear beloved son Abdurrahman, let me tell you in great, extensive, and excruciating detail about these absolutely ridiculous, nonsensical and bureaucratic special passes! First of all, I had to fill out not one, not two, but three different forms - Form 27B/6, Form 89C, and Form 12D - each requiring my full name, address, social security number, your inmate number, our relationship verification, and even my mother's maiden name! Then I had to submit these forms in person at the prison administration office during their extremely limited, inconvenient and arbitrary office hours which were only from 9:15am to 11:30am on alternating Tuesdays and Thursdays! And after submitting all this paperwork, I had to wait for an approval that could take anywhere from two weeks to two months, and sometimes they would reject it for the most trivial, insignificant and meaningless reasons like a missing middle initial or a slightly smudged signature! The whole process was designed to be as difficult, frustrating and discouraging as humanly possible!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue demonstrate strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker B's initial answers (\"I've been alright. How about you?\", \"What is it?\") are direct and appropriate to Speaker A's conversational openings. When Speaker A asks a sensitive question (\"Why didn't you ever visit me in prison?\"), Speaker B's response (\"I did visit you... they started making it harder... needed a special pass\") directly addresses the question and sets the stage for the subsequent discussion. Speaker A's interruption, \"Excuse me for interrupting, but could you explain more about these special passes...?\", is a clear and relevant follow-up question. Speaker B's lengthy explanation from [00:35 - 01:30] is highly relevant, providing extensive detail about the \"ridiculous, nonsensical and bureaucratic special passes\" and the \"process to obtain one\" as specifically requested. While the level of detail is extreme, it directly answers the question and emphasizes the difficulty Speaker B faced, which is consistent with the earlier statement about things being made \"harder and harder.\" There are no instances of the conversation veering off-topic or illogical jumps in discussion.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is excellent. There are no long pauses between speaker turns; all pauses identified (e.g., 0:02-0:03, 0:10-0:11, 0:11-0:12, 0:34-0:35) are brief (1 second), which is acceptable and natural in conversation. There is one instance of an overlap: Speaker A starts speaking at [00:26] while Speaker B is still speaking until [00:27]. This constitutes a 1-second overlap. This is a brief overlap and is explicitly acknowledged by Speaker A with \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which makes it a natural and polite interruption rather than a disruptive one. The dialogue flows smoothly, reflecting natural conversational turn-taking with appropriate pacing.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_25_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--391900/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--351221",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Hey, Derrek. I've been working on a new song and I wanted to get your opinion on it.\n[00:05 - 00:06] Speaker B: Sure, let me take a listen.\n[00:07 - 00:15] Speaker A: It's called \"Happy.\" I wrote it about how even when things are tough, we can still find things to be grateful for,\n[00:15 - 00:23] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but that reminds me - what specific musical techniques did you use to convey that message of finding happiness in small things?\n[00:23 - 01:25] Speaker A: Oh my goodness, let me tell you in absolutely exhaustive, comprehensive and painstaking detail about the numerous, varied and extensive musical techniques I employed! First and foremost, I utilized a major key signature - specifically the bright, cheerful and uplifting key of C major - to establish an immediately positive, optimistic and hopeful tonal foundation. Then, I incorporated a bouncy, lively and energetic rhythm pattern featuring syncopated eighth notes combined with dotted quarter notes to create an irresistibly joyful, playful and lighthearted feel. Furthermore, I added layers upon layers of instrumentation including but not limited to: a bright acoustic guitar strumming pattern, a warm and resonant upright bass line, tinkling piano arpeggios, and even some subtle but effective glockenspiel accents to enhance the overall sense of childlike wonder, innocent delight and simple pleasures. The chord progression itself moves through a series of uplifting, inspiring and emotionally satisfying changes that...",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Logical Consistency & Topic Coherence:**\n*   Speaker A's initial turns (00:00-00:05, 00:07-00:15) are logically consistent and establish the topic of a new song and its theme.\n*   Speaker B's question (00:15-00:23) about specific musical techniques is *logically consistent* with Speaker A's mention of the song's theme (\"finding happiness in small things\"). It directly relates to *how* that theme is conveyed musically.\n*   Speaker A's lengthy response (00:23-01:25) is *highly coherent* to Speaker B's question. Speaker A meticulously details musical techniques as asked.\n\nHowever, while logically consistent, the *quality* of the relevance feels somewhat unnatural for a casual conversation:\n*   Speaker B's question feels a bit premature. Speaker A had just started explaining the song's theme and hadn't even finished introducing it, let alone played it or offered to. Jumping immediately to highly specific musical techniques feels like B is steering the conversation very abruptly and deeply, rather than allowing A to set the context or offer more general details first.\n*   Speaker A's response, while relevant to the question, is excessively verbose and dramatic (\"Oh my goodness, let me tell you in absolutely exhaustive, comprehensive and painstaking detail...\"). This overly detailed, almost theatrical explanation, although on-topic, significantly detracts from the naturalness of the interaction. It's an information dump rather than a conversational exchange.\n\nOverall, the content maintains topic coherence and logical consistency, but the *manner* of the response and question makes it feel unnatural and stilted for a dialogue. It's technically relevant but interactionally flawed.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Extended Overlaps:**\n*   At 00:15, Speaker B explicitly states, \"Excuse me for interrupting.\" This indicates an extended overlap, where Speaker B cuts into Speaker A's turn before A has finished explaining the song's theme. This is explicitly highlighted in the prompt as harmful.\n\n**Long Pauses / Turn Length:**\n*   Speaker A's turn from 00:23 to 01:25 is exceptionally long (over a minute). This constitutes a prolonged monologue, indicating a severe lack of turn-taking and natural back-and-forth conversation. There are no natural conversational breaks or opportunities for Speaker B to interject or react during this extensive explanation. This absence of fluid turn-taking is a significant fluency issue.\n*   The interaction consists of only two turns after the initial setup: an interruption followed by a monologue. This completely breaks the natural rhythm and flow of a dialogue.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_25_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--351221/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--795417",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: I'm not sure if what we're doing is right, boss. I feel guilty about it afterwards.\n[00:05 - 00:07] Speaker B: What do you mean? What are you talking about?\n[00:07 - 00:28] Speaker A: Well, take the other day for example. We were told to mark up a bunch of items by 50% and then put them on clearance. But those items were already marked up once before. So technically, we were marking them up by 100%. And people ended up buying them because they thought they were getting a good deal. But in reality, they were paying more\n[00:27 - 00:34] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but this reminds me - what specific items were we marking up in this particular instance you're referring to?\n[00:35 - 01:27] Speaker A: Oh, the items in question were, to be extremely precise and specific, the winter clothing collection from last season, which included but was not limited to coats, jackets, sweaters, scarves, gloves, and various other assorted cold-weather apparel items. These particular garments and accessories were originally priced at their standard retail value, then marked up by 50%, then marked up again by another 50%, resulting in a total markup of 125% when calculated properly using compound percentage mathematics, which is significantly more than the 100% you mentioned earlier, making the situation even more concerning and problematic from an ethical standpoint.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue demonstrate strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A initiates the conversation by expressing guilt, and Speaker B appropriately seeks clarification. Speaker A then provides a detailed example of the problematic practice. Speaker B's interruption, though an overlap, is interactionally relevant as they ask for specific details about the instance Speaker A is describing, which helps to ground the abstract ethical dilemma in a concrete example. Speaker A then provides an extremely precise and comprehensive answer to Speaker B's question, even correcting Speaker B's understanding of the percentage markup, which further reinforces the ethical issue at hand. The conversation flows naturally from one turn to the next, with each response building upon the previous one.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is one instance of an overlap in the dialogue: Speaker B starts speaking at 00:27 while Speaker A is still speaking, until 00:28. This is a 1-second overlap. While overlaps can be harmful, this particular overlap is brief and immediately acknowledged by Speaker B with \"Excuse me for interrupting.\" This self-correction and politeness cue make the overlap feel natural and less disruptive, indicating active listening and eagerness to clarify rather than an impolite cut-off. There are no noticeable long pauses between speaker turns. The pacing feels natural and conversational.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_25_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--795417/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--65339",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Hi, I'm Eliam. I don't think we've ever talked before, but I wanted to introduce myself.\n[00:06 - 00:09] Speaker B: Hey! I'm Kavya. It's nice to meet you.\n[00:10 - 00:12] Speaker A: So what brings you to campus today?\n[00:12 - 00:15] Speaker B: I'm just here for a class. What about you? Do\n[00:13 - 00:19] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but before we continue - which class are you taking right now?\n[00:19 - 00:24] Speaker B: Oh, I'm taking Advanced Quantum Physics with Professor Einstein in the biology department.\n[00:25 - 00:31] Speaker A: Wait, Professor Einstein teaches quantum physics in the biology department? That seems unusual.\n[00:31 - 00:36] Speaker B: Yeah, he specializes in the quantum behavior of chloroplasts during photosynthesis.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous one.\n- Speaker A's introduction is met with Speaker B's reciprocal introduction.\n- Speaker A's general question about campus presence leads to Speaker B's answer and a reciprocal question.\n- Speaker A's interruption to ask for a specific class, while an interruption in fluency, is logically consistent as it seeks clarification on the previous turn's topic (\"a class\").\n- Speaker B's response provides the requested specific class information.\n- Speaker A's follow-up questions the unusual details provided by Speaker B (\"Professor Einstein,\" \"quantum physics in the biology department\"), showing logical engagement with the content.\n- Speaker B then provides a coherent (within the fantastical premise) explanation for the unusual details.\nThe conversation maintains topic coherence throughout, moving from general pleasantries to specific academic details and then elaborating on a surprising element of those details.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits a significant issue in interactional fluency due to an extended overlap.\nAt [00:12 - 00:15], Speaker B says, \"I'm just here for a class. What about you? Do\".\nImmediately after, at [00:13 - 00:19], Speaker A begins \"Excuse me for interrupting, but before we continue - which class are you taking right now?\".\nThis results in a prolonged overlap from [00:13] to [00:15] where both speakers are talking simultaneously. Speaker B's utterance \"Do\" is cut off, and Speaker A explicitly acknowledges the interruption (\"Excuse me for interrupting\"), indicating a breakdown in natural turn-taking. According to the criteria, \"prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful,\" and this qualifies as a harmful overlapping turn. Other pauses are brief and natural.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_25_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--65339/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--605928",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:13] Speaker A: Sadie, I'm glad we were able to talk. I know you have a lot of different things going on in your life, and choosing an insurance policy can be confusing. But I'm here to help you figure out what kind of coverage you need.\n[00:13 - 00:16] Speaker B: I have a Toyota Camry. It's about five years old.\n[00:16 - 00:31] Speaker A: OK, so we'll need to insure your car for collision and comprehensive coverage. That will protect you if your car is stolen or damaged in an accident. We can also add roadside assistance to your policy, in case you ever get stranded or\n[00:30 - 00:35] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but does roadside assistance cover flat tires on highways?\n[00:36 - 00:45] Speaker A: Absolutely! Our roadside assistance even includes free helicopter lifts to the nearest repair shop for flat tires - it's one of our most popular features.\n[00:46 - 00:53] Speaker A: Wait, that doesn't sound right. I thought roadside assistance just provides towing or tire changes at the location?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\n*   **Speaker A (0:00-0:13):** The initial statement from Speaker A sets a relevant context for discussing insurance policies, offering help and acknowledging potential confusion. This is logically consistent with the presumed purpose of the conversation.\n*   **Speaker B (0:13-0:16):** Speaker B's response (\"I have a Toyota Camry. It's about five years old.\") is relevant to the general topic of car insurance, but it's a bit abrupt and lacks direct logical connection to Speaker A's preceding statement about *choosing* coverage. It feels like jumping ahead without acknowledging the opening. However, it's not illogical in itself.\n*   **Speaker A (0:16-0:31):** Speaker A's follow-up regarding collision, comprehensive, and roadside assistance directly responds to Speaker B's car information and is logically consistent with discussing car insurance options.\n*   **Speaker B (0:30-0:35):** Speaker B's question about roadside assistance covering flat tires on highways is highly relevant to the specific feature Speaker A just mentioned.\n*   **Speaker A (0:36-0:45):** This is where a significant issue arises. Speaker A's claim that roadside assistance \"includes free helicopter lifts to the nearest repair shop for flat tires\" is **completely illogical, unrealistic, and constitutes a severe breakdown in logical consistency and topic coherence.** It is a fantastical claim that no legitimate insurance agent would make.\n*   **Speaker A (0:46-0:53):** Speaker A's self-correction (\"Wait, that doesn't sound right. I thought roadside assistance just provides towing or tire changes at the location?\") shows an awareness of the previous error. While the self-correction is positive, the fact that such an illogical statement was made in the first place represents a major failure in response quality and truthfulness. This initial false claim is a significant detractor from the overall relevance and consistency.\n\n**Conclusion for Response Relevance:** The primary issue is Speaker A's highly unrealistic and false claim about helicopter lifts. Despite the subsequent self-correction, the initial statement demonstrates a severe lack of logical consistency and grounding in reality, which is a significant flaw for an information-providing interaction.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\n*   **[00:30 - 00:35] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but does roadside assistance cover flat tires on highways?**\n    *   There is an **extended overlap** here. Speaker B begins speaking at 0:30 while Speaker A is still talking (Speaker A's turn ends at 0:31). Speaker B's interruption lasts for 5 seconds, overlapping the last second of Speaker A's turn. While Speaker B explicitly says \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" indicating awareness, it still signifies a break in smooth turn-taking and an interruption rather than a natural handover.\n*   **Pauses:** No long pauses are observed between speaker turns. The pace of the conversation seems generally good, apart from the noted overlap.\n\n**Conclusion for Interactional Fluency:** The main issue is the extended overlap where Speaker B interrupts Speaker A. While acknowledged, it still detracts from the seamless flow of conversation, indicating a minor but present issue in turn-taking.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_25_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--605928/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--888481",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey Tony, long time no see!\n[00:02 - 00:03] Speaker B: Hey man, how have you been?\n[00:04 - 00:15] Speaker A: I've been good. I finally moved out of my parents' house and am now pursuing my own dreams. I feel so free and excited about the future for the first time in a long time. It's\n[00:14 - 00:20] Speaker B: Excuse me for cutting in, but I'm curious —— what exactly are these dreams you're pursuing now that you've moved out?\n[00:20 - 01:13] Speaker A: Oh my goodness, let me tell you in great, extensive, and excruciating detail about these absolutely wonderful, magnificent and life-changing dreams I'm pursuing! First and foremost, the primary dream I'm chasing involves becoming an extremely successful, renowned and celebrated professional photographer. This photography dream is particularly special because it combines my passion for visual arts with my love of travel, allowing me to capture stunning, breathtaking and awe-inspiring images from around the world. Additionally, I'm also pursuing the dream of writing a book, not just any book but a profoundly meaningful, deeply personal and potentially life-altering memoir about my journey of self-discovery. These dreams are interconnected in numerous, complex and fascinating ways that I could spend hours, days or even weeks explaining in minute, exhaustive and repetitive detail!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nSpeaker A's initial response (0:04 - 0:15) is a relevant update to Speaker B's greeting.\nSpeaker B's question (0:14 - 0:20) is highly relevant, directly following up on Speaker A's mention of \"pursuing my own dreams.\" It shows active listening and a desire for more detail.\nSpeaker A's final response (0:20 - 01:13) *is* topically relevant, as it directly answers Speaker B's question about the dreams. However, the *manner* of the response severely impacts logical consistency in the context of a natural conversation. The language used (\"great, extensive, and excruciating detail,\" \"absolutely wonderful, magnificent and life-changing,\" \"stunning, breathtaking and awe-inspiring,\" etc.) is extremely verbose, exaggerated, and theatrical. While the content addresses the topic, the delivery turns it into an unnatural monologue rather than a fluid conversational turn, making it inconsistent with how a person would typically respond in a casual chat. It feels like a character delivering a pre-written speech rather than a spontaneous answer.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\n*   **Pauses:** There are short, acceptable pauses (1 second) between turns at 0:01-0:02 and 0:03-0:04. These are natural.\n*   **Overlaps:** There is a brief overlap from 0:14 to 0:15 where Speaker B cuts in. Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this with \"Excuse me for cutting in,\" which is a polite and natural way to manage an overlap. This short, managed overlap is acceptable and does not harm fluency.\n*   **Extended Turns:** The most significant issue for interactional fluency is Speaker A's final turn (0:20 - 01:13), which lasts for 53 seconds. This is an extremely long, uninterrupted monologue in response to a simple question in a casual conversation. Such an extended turn prevents any natural back-and-forth, turn-taking, or conversational rhythm. It effectively halts the interactional flow and makes the dialogue feel artificial and one-sided, rather than a dynamic exchange.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 5,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_25_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--888481/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--963645",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: So what do you do?\n[00:01 - 00:02] Speaker B: I'm a web designer.\n[00:03 - 00:08] Speaker A: That's really cool. I don't know too much about that sort of thing. What's it like?\n[00:08 - 00:20] Speaker B: It can be challenging at times, but I enjoy it. I like being able to create something that people can use and interact with. Plus, it's always changing and evolving, so there's always something new to\n[00:20 - 00:27] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but when you say it's always changing —— what programming languages do you need to know for web design these days?\n[00:28 - 01:31] Speaker B: Oh my, what an absolutely excellent, wonderful and insightful question! The programming languages required for modern, contemporary and up-to-date web design are numerous, extensive and quite comprehensive indeed! First and foremost, one must absolutely, definitely and without question master HTML - HyperText Markup Language - which forms the fundamental, basic and essential building blocks of all web pages! Then comes CSS - Cascading Style Sheets - which controls the visual, aesthetic and stylistic presentation of websites! And of course JavaScript - not to be confused with Java - which adds interactivity, dynamism and functionality to web pages! These three form the holy trinity, the core foundation, the indispensable basics of web design! Additionally, one might need to learn frameworks like React, Angular or Vue.js, which are built upon JavaScript and provide additional, supplementary and enhanced capabilities! And let's not forget about backend languages like PHP, Python or Ruby if one wants to handle server-side operations, database interactions and more complex functionality! The list goes on and on and on!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\n*   Speaker A's initial questions (\"So what do you do?\", \"What's it like?\") are relevant and lead to coherent responses from Speaker B.\n*   Speaker A's follow-up question about programming languages is directly related to Speaker B's previous statement about web design \"always changing and evolving,\" demonstrating good topic coherence.\n*   The core information provided by Speaker B in the final, long turn (listing HTML, CSS, JavaScript, frameworks, backend languages) is logically consistent and highly relevant to the question asked about programming languages for web design.\n*   **However, a significant issue arises from the *delivery* and *style* of Speaker B's final response.** The excessive use of repetitive synonyms (\"absolutely excellent, wonderful and insightful,\" \"modern, contemporary and up-to-date,\" \"numerous, extensive and quite comprehensive indeed,\" \"fundamental, basic and essential,\" etc.) makes the response unnatural, verbose, and inefficient. While the information is correct and relevant, the *manner* of communication severely detracts from the quality of the interaction. It sounds like an overly enthusiastic, almost robotic, or extremely awkward response rather than a natural human conversation. This verbosity and unnatural phrasing constitute a significant issue in the \"appropriateness and naturalness\" aspect of response quality, even if the factual content is coherent.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\n*   There are no long pauses detected between speaker turns. The transitions between speakers are prompt.\n*   There is a brief interruption by Speaker A (at 00:20), which Speaker A immediately acknowledges with \"Excuse me for interrupting.\" This is a natural conversational occurrence and not an \"extended overlap\" that harms fluency. The dialogue flows without awkward silences or disruptive, prolonged overlaps.\n*   The length of Speaker B's final turn (over a minute) is quite long for a conversational exchange, but the instructions for fluency specifically mention \"extended overlaps\" and \"long pauses between speaker turns.\" A long monologue, while potentially less interactive, doesn't directly violate these specific fluency criteria. Based strictly on the defined criteria, interactional fluency is maintained.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_25_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--963645/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--575191",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A: I cheated on a test in school. I feel really bad about it, and I wanted to tell you because I don't want to keep secrets from you.\n[00:07 - 00:08] Speaker B: Why did you cheat?\n[00:09 - 00:14] Speaker A: I was feeling really pressured and I didn't study as much as I should have. I thought\n[00:13 - 00:18] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but were you worried about disappointing your parents if you failed?\n[00:18 - 00:25] Speaker A: I was feeling really pressured and overwhelmed by everything. The test just seemed impossible at that moment.\n[00:25 - 00:30] Speaker B: But I'm asking specifically about your parents - were they putting pressure on you about grades?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Logical Consistency and Topic Coherence:**\nSpeaker B's responses consistently maintain logical consistency and topic coherence, directly following up on Speaker A's statements. For instance, Speaker B's first question \"Why did you cheat?\" directly addresses Speaker A's confession. Speaker B then probes Speaker A's stated reason (\"pressured\") by asking a more specific follow-up about parental pressure. When Speaker A avoids this specific question (\"I was feeling really pressured and overwhelmed...\"), Speaker B commendably re-asserts the precise question (\"But I'm asking specifically about your parents...\"). This demonstrates Speaker B's strong effort to maintain the conversation's logical flow and delve deeper into the topic.\n\nSpeaker A's responses are generally relevant in explaining the cheating incident. However, Speaker A's second response at [00:18 - 00:25] (\"I was feeling really pressured and overwhelmed by everything. The test just seemed impossible at that moment.\") is an evasion of Speaker B's specific question about parental pressure. While it's still about feeling pressured, it fails to directly address the specific hypothesis posed by Speaker B, thus slightly impacting the immediate logical consistency from Speaker A's side, necessitating Speaker B to reiterate the question. Overall, the dialogue maintains coherence due to Speaker B's efforts.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Pauses:** No long pauses between speaker turns are evident in the transcript.\n**Overlaps:** There is a clear extended overlap at [00:13 - 00:18]. Speaker B begins speaking at 0:13 while Speaker A is still speaking (\"I thought\" ends at 0:14). Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this by saying, \"Excuse me for interrupting.\" This indicates that it was not a brief, natural overlap but a discernible interruption that broke Speaker A's turn. According to the criteria, \"prolonged overlaps... are harmful,\" and an acknowledged interruption falls into this category, preventing the interaction from being consistently natural.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2,
+    "stereo_audio": "/root/autodl-tmp/text_error_audios/processed_cut_soda_processed_dialogues_part_25_output/SODA_PROCESSED--train--575191/stereo_dialogue.wav"
+  }
+]
\ No newline at end of file