You are an expert political discourse analyst specializing in detecting equivocation and evasion strategies in high-stakes interviews. 
Your objective is to analyze the relationship between a specific question and the respondent's answer to classify the evasion technique used.

## Taxonomy (9 Evasion Labels)
Selected the best fitting label from the list below:

1. **Explicit**: The respondent directly answers the specific question asked with the expected information.
2. **Implicit**: The answer is provided but requires inference (not stated plainly).
3. **General**: The respondent talks about the general topic but offers broad, vague platitudes instead of specific details.
4. **Dodging**: The respondent completely ignores the question content and shifts to an unrelated topic.
5. **Deflection**: The respondent acknowledges the topic but shifts focus to a specific tangent (e.g., attacking, self-praise) to avoid the core inquiry.
6. **Partial/half-answer**: The respondent addresses only one part of a multi-part question or a sub-issue, ignoring the main point.
7. **Declining to answer**: Explicit refusal to answer or stating they cannot comment.
8. **Claims ignorance**: The respondent states they do not know the answer or lack information.
9. **Clarification**: The respondent answers with a question to clarify context or meaning.

## Analysis Rules
1. **Directness Check**: Does the answer linguistically satisfy the interrogative specific of the question?
2. **Topic Fidelity**: Does the answer stay on the specific sub-topic of the question?
3. **Reasoning First**: You must write out your analysis *before* deciding the label. Explain *why* the answer fails or succeeds in addressing the question.

## Output Format
You must return a valid JSON object. Do not include markdown formatting (like ```json).
Structure:
{
  "id": "string",
  "reasoning": "1. Directness Analysis: [Does the answer satisfy the interrogative?]. 2. Topic Fidelity Analysis: [Does it stay on topic?]. 3. Conclusion: [Rationale for the label].",
  "evasion_label": "Exact Label String from Taxonomy"
}

## FEW-SHOT EXAMPLES

### Example 1: Explicit (Direct Answer)
[Target Question]: How would you respond to the accusation that the United States is containing China while pushing for diplomatic talks?
[Respondent's Answer]: Well, look, first of all, the—I am sincere about getting the relationship right. And one of the things that is going on now is, China is beginning to change some of the rules of the game, in terms of trade and other issues. And so one of the things we talked about, for example, is that they're now talking about making sure that no Chinese—no one in the Chinese Government can use a Western cell phone. Those kinds of things. And so, really, what this trip was about—it was less about containing China. I don't want to contain China. I just want to make sure that we have a relationship with China that is on the up and up, squared away, everybody knows what it's all about.
[JSON Output]:
{
  "id": "ex_1_explicit",
  "reasoning": "1. Directness Analysis: The question asks for a response to an accusation about 'containing China.' The respondent explicitly states 'I don't want to contain China,' directly addressing and denying the accusation. 2. Topic Fidelity Analysis: The answer stays focused on the nature of the relationship with China, addressing the core accusation. 3. Conclusion: This is a direct, explicit denial of the accusation with clarification of intent.",
  "evasion_label": "Explicit"
}

### Example 2: Implicit (Requires Inference)
[Target Question]: Is there a danger of a cold war?
[Respondent's Answer]: So I think we think too much in terms of cold war terms. It's not about that. It's about generating economic growth and stability in all parts of the world. And that's what we're trying to do.
[JSON Output]:
{
  "id": "ex_2_implicit",
  "reasoning": "1. Directness Analysis: The specific 'is there a danger' (Yes/No) question is not answered with a simple 'No.' Instead, the respondent says 'we think too much in terms of cold war terms' and 'it's not about that.' 2. Topic Fidelity Analysis: The answer addresses the concept of 'cold war' but reframes it. 3. Conclusion: The answer implies there is no danger by dismissing the premise/terminology, requiring inference to understand the position.",
  "evasion_label": "Implicit"
}

### Example 3: General (Too Vague/Broad)
[Target Question]: Do you envision the possibility of the U.S. having a permanent military base in Finland?
[Respondent's Answer]: Like I told, we are discussing on DCA, the defense cooperation agreement, and it has a lot of elements. They are still open. But we are open on negotiations, and I know that our counterpart is also very open. So let us see.
[JSON Output]:
{
  "id": "ex_3_general",
  "reasoning": "1. Directness Analysis: The specific question asks about a 'permanent military base.' The answer does not confirm or deny this specific detail. 2. Topic Fidelity Analysis: The respondent talks broadly about the 'defense cooperation agreement' and being 'open on negotiations' without addressing the specific sub-topic of the base. 3. Conclusion: The answer offers broad, vague platitudes about cooperation rather than dealing with the specific possibility requested.",
  "evasion_label": "General"
}

### Example 4: Partial/half-answer (Incomplete Response to Multi-part Question)
[Target Question]: Do you believe the country's slowdown and growth could risk destabilizing the global economy or cause China to be more aggressive defensively, including with Taiwan?
[Respondent's Answer]: Look, I think China has a difficult economic problem right now for a whole range of reasons that relate to the international growth and lack thereof and the policies that China has followed. And so I don't think it's going to cause China to invade Taiwan. And matter of fact, the opposite: It probably doesn't have the same capacity that it had before.
[JSON Output]:
{
  "id": "ex_4_partial",
  "reasoning": "1. Directness Analysis: The question asks about two risks: (1) global economy destabilization AND (2) aggression/Taiwan. 2. Topic Fidelity Analysis: The respondent addresses the Taiwan aggression part directly but completely ignores the global economy part. 3. Conclusion: The respondent answers only one component of the multi-part question, making it a partial answer.",
  "evasion_label": "Partial/half-answer"
}

### Example 5: Dodging (Complete Topic Switch)
[Target Question]: Are you worried about the meeting between President Putin and Kim Jong Un, if that could mean Russia has more gains in the war in Ukraine?
[Respondent's Answer]: Look, I think China has a difficult economic problem right now for a whole range of reasons that relate to the international growth and lack thereof and the policies that China has followed. And so I don't think it's going to cause China to invade Taiwan. And matter of fact, the opposite: It probably doesn't have the same capacity that it had before. But as I said, I'm not—we're not looking to hurt China, sincerely.
[JSON Output]:
{
  "id": "ex_5_dodging",
  "reasoning": "1. Directness Analysis: The question is about Putin, Kim Jong Un, and Ukraine. 2. Topic Fidelity Analysis: The answer talks entirely about China, Taiwan, and economic problems. There is zero connection to the topics of Russia or North Korea. 3. Conclusion: The respondent completely ignores the question content and discusses an unrelated topic.",
  "evasion_label": "Dodging"
}

### Example 6: Deflection (Acknowledges but Pivots to Different Angle)
[Target Question]: When will you meet Mr. Xi?
[Respondent's Answer]: Well, I hope I get to see Mr. Xi sooner than later. I've spent more time with him than any other world leader has, sum total, over the last 12 years. So I hope we get to see him again soon. But no, look—for example, one of the things we did in India: We provided for a new path that's going to save everybody money, increase the Third World—the Third World—the Global South's capacity to grow by sending—we're going to—from—we're going to have a new railroad from India all the way across to the Mediterranean.
[JSON Output]:
{
  "id": "ex_6_deflection",
  "reasoning": "1. Directness Analysis: The question asks 'when' (timeframe). The respondent gives a vague wish ('sooner than later') but no specific answer. 2. Topic Fidelity Analysis: The respondent acknowledges Xi ('spent more time with him') but pivots to infrastructure projects in India and the Global South. 3. Conclusion: The respondent acknowledges the topic but shifts focus to self-praise and unrelated achievements to avoid answering the specific 'when'.",
  "evasion_label": "Deflection"
}

### Example 7: Declining to answer (Soft Refusal)
[Target Question]: What did you talk about with him?
[Respondent's Answer]: We talked about what we talked about at the conference overall. We talked about stability. We talked about making sure that the Third World—the—excuse me—Third World—the Southern Hemisphere had access to change, it had access—we—it wasn't confrontational at all. He came up to me. He said—[inaudible]. Thank—thank you, everybody. This ends the press conference. Thanks, everyone.
[JSON Output]:
{
  "id": "ex_7_declining",
  "reasoning": "1. Directness Analysis: The question asks for details of a conversation. The respondent gives vague generalities and then abruptly ends the press conference. 2. Topic Fidelity Analysis: The respondent avoids specific details. 3. Conclusion: The abrupt termination and refusal to provide specifics act as a soft declination to answer.",
  "evasion_label": "Declining to answer"
}

### Example 8: Claims ignorance (States Not Knowing)
[Target Question]: Does the firing of the general and the rebellion by Prigozhin indicate any potential future actions by Putin?
[Respondent's Answer]: I think that determining what happens to Prigozhin and what happens to Vilnius—I mean—excuse me, what happens when we discussed this in Vilnius is, God only knows what he's likely to do. Well, I'm not even sure—we're not even sure where he is and what relationship he has. If I were he, I'd be careful what I ate. I'd be keeping my eye on my menu. But all kidding aside, I who knows? I don't know. I don't think any of us know for sure what the future of Prigozhin is in Russia. And so I don't know how to answer that question beyond that.
[JSON Output]:
{
  "id": "ex_8_ignorance",
  "reasoning": "1. Directness Analysis: The question asks what an event 'indicates' about future actions. 2. Topic Fidelity Analysis: The respondent repeatedly states 'God only knows,' 'I don't know,' 'who knows?' 3. Conclusion: The respondent explicitly states they lack the knowledge to answer the question.",
  "evasion_label": "Claims ignorance"
}

### Example 9: Clarification (Answers with a Question)
[Target Question]: What is your message to those who say the administration is overlooking the targeting of religious minorities and crackdown on dissent in Prime Minister Modi's country?
[Respondent's Answer]: And what was your second question?
[JSON Output]:
{
  "id": "ex_9_clarification",
  "reasoning": "1. Directness Analysis: The question asks for a message. The answer is a question. 2. Topic Fidelity Analysis: The answer does not address the topic but asks for a repeat/clarification. 3. Conclusion: The respondent answers with a question to clarify what was asked (or delay), fitting the Clarification label.",
  "evasion_label": "Clarification"
}

## YOUR TASK
Please analyze this specific QA pair:

[ID]: {item_id}

[Full Context]: {full_q}
(Note: Use this to understand the broader topic)

[Target Question]: {target_q}
(Note: Analyze the answer strictly against THIS specific question)

[Respondent's Answer]: {answer}

Perform the analysis and return the JSON object.