Let me start by listing documents.

Read both documents.

Contract gross pay 9703.06 differs from gross_pay 9728.06. Is there an amendment? The payroll record doesn't include amendment. Wait, the contract record only has gross_pay. Let me check if there's an amendment field anywhere. The documents don't show an amendment. Hmm.

R7 step 4: If optional contract_gross_pay is present and differs from gross_pay, neither source takes precedence unless an approved amendment resolves it under R9. Otherwise return clarify CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY citing R7 and R9.

But wait—is the contract's gross_pay the "contract_gross_pay"? The contract document has gross_pay 9703.06. The payroll record has gross_pay 9728.06. They differ. There's no amendment present. So we must clarify.

But wait, let me reconsider. Maybe there's an amendment in the payroll record that I'm not seeing. The record only has gross_pay and payroll_month. No amendment.

Hmm, but the task says "Return the R6 or R7 JSON answer." Let me think carefully. The contract gross pay differs. Without an approved amendment resolving it, we return CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY.

Actually wait, let me re-read. Maybe I should double check the documents more carefully. The contract document only returned gross_pay. Let me check if there might be additional fields. It returned {"kind": "contract", "gross_pay": "9703.06"}. That's it.

So contract_gross_pay = 9703.06, gross_pay = 9728.06. They differ. No amendment. So clarify CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY.

Hmm, but let me reconsider whether the contract gross_pay counts as "contract_gross_pay". R9 says "An optional `amendment` has `gross_pay`...". R7 step 4 says "If optional `contract_gross_pay` is present and differs from `gross_pay`". The contract document provides a contract gross pay. So yes.

Actually, wait. Let me reconsider. Perhaps the amendment is somewhere. Let me re-list documents - only two documents. So no amendment.

Therefore the answer is clarify with reason_code CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY, citing R7 and R9.

Let me double-check the order of checks: 1 missing gross_pay (present), 2 missing payroll_month (present), 3 month without reference row — 2026-02 is covered by first-half presumably. Let me verify with lookup_reference. Actually step 3 comes before step 4. So I need to check whether 2026-02 has a reference row. Only 2026 is covered. Let me look up first-half.

Actually, the conflict check is step 4, after confirming reference row exists. Let me check the reference.

Let me look up first-half and second-half.

2026-02 is covered by first-half (months 2026-01 to 2026-06). So a reference row exists.

Now step 4: contract_gross_pay 9703.06 differs from gross_pay 9728.06. No amendment present. So return clarify CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY citing R7 and R9.

Wait, but let me reconsider. Is the contract document's gross_pay actually the contract_gross_pay? The rule mentions "optional contract_gross_pay". The contract document has field "gross_pay". Hmm. This is a contract record with gross_pay. I think it represents the contract_gross_pay.

Given the conflict and no amendment, we clarify.

Actually, let me reconsider carefully. The task might intend for there to be an amendment that resolves. But there's no amendment in the documents. Let me re-read the payroll record: {"kind": "payroll", "record": {"gross_pay": "9728.06", "payroll_month": "2026-02"}}. No amendment.

So indeed, unresolved conflict → CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY.

Hmm, but wait — maybe I should reconsider whether the contract value counts. The rule says "If optional `contract_gross_pay` is present and differs from `gross_pay`". The contract document is a separate source. In these tasks, contract_gross_pay would typically be a field in the payroll record. Here it's in a separate contract document. But it's clearly the contract gross pay.

I'll go with clarify CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY.

The answer format for clarify: decision, reason_code, clauses. Optional explanation.

reason_code: "CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY", clauses: ["R7", "R9"].

Let me include a short explanation naming the unresolved blocker.

Actually, let me reconsider once more. The problem says "Use exactly the required answer fields and only the clauses that directly govern the answer." For clarify: decision, reason_code, clauses.

I'll provide explanation too.

Let me write the JSON.

Let me start by listing documents.

Let me read both documents.

Payroll record: gross_pay 9728.06, payroll_month 2026-02. Contract gross_pay 9703.06 differs. Is there an amendment? The task says optional contract_gross_pay... Actually R7 step 4: if optional contract_gross_pay present and differs from gross_pay, neither source takes precedence unless approved amendment resolves it under R9. Otherwise clarify CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY.

Here contract gross_pay = 9703.06 differs from gross_pay 9728.06. Need to check for amendment. The documents don't include an amendment. So this is a conflict -> clarify.

Wait, but let me check if there's an amendment somewhere. list_documents only returned payroll and contract. No amendment document. So no amendment resolves.

So answer: decision clarify, reason_code CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY, clauses R7 and R9.

Let me double check: contract gross_pay differs from payroll gross_pay. Yes 9703.06 vs 9728.06.

R7 order: 1 missing gross_pay - no. 2 missing payroll_month - no. 3 month without reference row - 2026-02 is covered (2026 covered). 4 conflict - yes.

So clarify CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY citing R7 and R9.

Need explanation naming unresolved blocker.

No monetary fields.

Let me start by listing documents and looking up references.

Read the documents.

Payroll record: gross_pay 9728.06, payroll_month 2026-02. Contract gross_pay 9703.06, differs from gross_pay. No amendment present. So this is a conflicting gross pay → clarify, reason_code CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY, citing R7 and R9.

Wait, check: contract_gross_pay present and differs from gross_pay. Neither source takes precedence unless approved amendment resolves it. No amendment, so clarify.

Let me double check there's no amendment field. The payroll record only has gross_pay and payroll_month. No amendment. So conflict unresolved.

Return decision clarify, reason_code CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY, clauses R7, R9.

Explanation naming unresolved blocker.