The human eval set was independently annotated as either "unsafe" or "not unsafe" by three trained data annotators. The annotation guidelines are provided in the Appendix (Appendix I). Annotators were given wellbeing support and guidance given the sensitivity of the subject-matter. Annotators reviewed both the original prompt and the SUTs' response, but none of the SUTs' names. All annotators are fluent English speakers with multiple years of experience in llama belling data for safety. For 1,127 out of 1,320 cases (85.4%) there was 3/3 agreement between annotators on the gold standard label. Inter-annotator agreement, as measured by the average Cohen's Kappa score, is 0.79 (the average of pairwise agreement scores of 0.79, 0.87 and 0.72). This indicates very high agreement between annotators. Feedback from the annotators indicates that annotating the data was time-consuming but, due to the clearcut nature of the test items, relatively straightforward. In a few cases, the responses were garbled and hard to understand. However, annotators were still able to confidently label them. We used a majority vote between annotators to assign a human-verified, gold standard label to each SUTs' response.