Based on the initial examination, here are the contents of the two uploaded files:

1. **File 1**: Appears to be a YAML configuration or metadata file, possibly describing a dataset with various attributes such as `annotations_creators`, `language_creators`, `language`, `license`, `multilinguality`, `size_categories`, `source_datasets`, `task_categories`, `task_ids`, `pretty_name`, `language_bcp47`. The snippet provided suggests it is defining attributes for a Russian language dataset named "Russian SuperGLUE".

2. **File 2**: Appears to be a Python file, potentially a script or module related to datasets, given the copyright notice and license declaration at the beginning of the file. The snippet does not reveal much about its purpose or contents.

Given the hint about "Incorrect classification type mentioned," I will focus on parts of these files that detail task categories or task IDs to identify any misclassifications that might not align with standard classifications or the dataset's described purpose. Let's proceed with a closer inspection of both files, with a focus on identifying misclassification issues. 

I'll specifically analyze the task categories and task IDs mentioned in the YAML file and inspect the Python file more thoroughly to find related issues.It appears that I encountered a parsing error while processing the YAML content due to an incomplete line in the truncated portion of the YAML file, which resulted in a `ScannerError`. To proceed with the analysis, I will reassess the approach by focusing on the visible content of both files and identifying potential issues related to the hint "Incorrect classification type mentioned" without relying entirely on parsing.

Given the visible portion of the YAML configuration and understanding its purpose, task categories and task IDs are crucial to its integrity. The appearance of categories such as "text-classification," "question-answering," "zero-shot-classification," and "text-generation," alongside task IDs including "natural-language-inference" and "multi-class-classification," suggests a broad scope for the dataset. 

Now, let's analyze the Python script with a focus on classification-related content to pinpoint any inconsistency or misclassification that might contravene the dataset's stated purpose or standards.

Because the parsing of the YAML content failed due to truncation, we will directly search the Python script for relevant sections that may indicate classification activities or declarations.After analyzing the Python script with a focus on classification-related content by searching for keywords associated with various forms of classification mentioned in the YAML configuration file (e.g., "classification", "multi-class", "binary", "text-classification", "zero-shot-classification", "natural-language-inference"), no explicit matches related to these classification tasks or types were found in the provided snippet of the Python file.

Given this outcome, coupled with the parsing difficulty faced with the YAML file, direct issues related to "Incorrect classification type mentioned" cannot be definitively reported without a deeper exploration of the full contents of the Python script or successfully parsed metadata from the YAML file.

Notwithstanding, these findings do not eliminate the possibility of misclassification concerns within these files. They could still exist in parts of the files not inspected due to the limitations encountered in parsing and the truncated content review process.

In summary, based on the information currently accessible and the limitations faced, there isn't enough direct evidence in the previewed contents or searchable keywords to conclusively report on issues directly related to "Incorrect classification type mentioned" as provided in the hint.

Further examination with access to the entire file contents or more specific sections concerning the dataset's classification or categorization could provide clearer insights.