An abundance of datasets exist for training and evaluating models on the task of summary generation.However, these datasets are often derived heuristically, and lack sufficient annotations to support research into all aspects of summarization, such as evidence extraction and controllable summarization. We introduce a benchmark comprising 8 tasks that require multi-dimensional understanding of summarization, e.g., surfacing evidence for a summary, assessing its correctness, and gauging its relevance to different topics. We compare various methods on this benchmark and discover that on multiple tasks, moderately-sized fine-tuned models consistently outperform much larger few-shot prompted language models. For factuality related tasks, we also evaluate existing heuristics to create training data and find that training on them performs worse than training on $20\times$ less human-labeled data. Our benchmark consists of data from 6 different domains, allowing us to study cross-domain performance of trained models. We find that for some tasks, the amount of training data matters more than the domain where it comes from, while for other tasks training specifically on data from the target domain, even if limited, is more beneficial. Our work fulfills the need for a well-annotated summarization benchmark with diverse tasks, and provides useful insights about the impact of the quality, size and domain of training data.