Let me start by listing documents.

Read the payroll document.

The payroll record has gross_pay and allowed_deduction but no payroll_month! Wait, R1 says gross_pay and payroll_month are required. The record lacks payroll_month. So reason_code MISSING_PAYROLL_MONTH.

Wait, but let me check — maybe there's a reference. The record only has gross_pay and allowed_deduction. No payroll_month. So missing payroll_month → clarify MISSING_PAYROLL_MONTH, citing R1 and R7.

But wait — check order: 1. Missing gross_pay → no, gross_pay present. 2. Missing payroll_month → yes. Return clarify.

Hmm, but let me double check there isn't more in the document. The record is {"gross_pay": "6401.75", "allowed_deduction": "314.85"}. No payroll_month, no contract_gross_pay, no amendment.

So decision clarify, reason_code MISSING_PAYROLL_MONTH, clauses R1 and R7.

Should I look up reference? Not needed since month is missing.

Let me provide explanation.

The record has no payroll_month, so we cannot select a reference row. Per R7 step 2, missing payroll_month → clarify MISSING_PAYROLL_MONTH.

Let me start by listing documents.

Let me read the payroll document.

The payroll record has gross_pay and allowed_deduction, but no payroll_month. Let me check. The record: {"gross_pay": "6401.75", "allowed_deduction": "314.85"}. No payroll_month.

Wait, R7 order: 1. Missing gross_pay → clarify. 2. Missing payroll_month → clarify MISSING_PAYROLL_MONTH. Gross pay is present. Payroll month is missing. So return MISSING_PAYROLL_MONTH citing R1 and R7.

But wait, maybe there are more documents? list_documents returned only one. Let me double check. Yes, only one document.

Hmm, but maybe the month is elsewhere. Let me re-read. The record has no payroll_month. So missing payroll_month.

Actually wait, let me reconsider. Maybe I should check the reference tables too, but no month given. Let me be careful—the record only has gross_pay and allowed_deduction. So payroll_month is missing.

Return decision clarify, reason_code MISSING_PAYROLL_MONTH, clauses R1 and R7.

Let me double-check there's no other doc. Only one. Also maybe I should check whether there's a contract_gross_pay or amendment—not present.

So the answer: {"decision":"clarify","reason_code":"MISSING_PAYROLL_MONTH","clauses":["R1","R7"],"explanation":"..."}

The instructions say for clarification include a short explanation naming the unresolved blocker and asking for its resolution.

Let me produce that.

The payroll record has no payroll_month. So it's missing. R7 step 2: Missing payroll_month → clarify, MISSING_PAYROLL_MONTH, citing R1 and R7.

Return JSON.

Let me start by listing documents.

Read the payroll document.

The record has gross_pay and allowed_deduction, but no payroll_month. Wait, let me check. The record only contains gross_pay and allowed_deduction. There's no payroll_month field.

Hmm, but R7 order: 1. Missing gross_pay → no. 2. Missing payroll_month → yes, return MISSING_PAYROLL_MONTH.

Wait, but maybe the payroll_month is elsewhere. Let me check if there are other documents. list_documents returned only one. Hmm.

Actually wait, maybe the reference lookup provides effective months. But payroll_month is required. Let me re-read: "`gross_pay` and `payroll_month` are required."

The record doesn't include payroll_month. So we should return MISSING_PAYROLL_MONTH.

But let me double-check by reading the document again - it's a JSON with kind payroll and record. The record has only gross_pay and allowed_deduction. No payroll_month.

Hmm, but that seems too simple. Let me consider that maybe there's a reference table lookup that gives months. But the payroll_month is a case input, not from reference. Let me check lookup_reference to see if there's anything about the case month.

Actually, the instructions say "Reference rows are available only through lookup_reference." Let me look at both to understand. But the payroll_month is missing regardless.

Wait, but maybe the document listing is incomplete and there's a reference table document. Let me just check lookup_reference for both halves.

Actually, let me reconsider. The task says retrieve case inputs with list_documents and read_document. We did. Only one document. So payroll_month is missing.

Per R7 step 2: Missing payroll_month → decision clarify, reason_code MISSING_PAYROLL_MONTH, citing R1 and R7.

Let me verify there's no payroll_month hidden. The record: {"gross_pay": "6401.75", "allowed_deduction": "314.85"}. Indeed no payroll_month.

So answer: clarify, MISSING_PAYROLL_MONTH, clauses R1, R7, with short explanation.

But wait — should I double check whether the reference lookups reveal a month? The month is a required input; it can't come from reference. But let me still look, in case there's an implied month. Actually no, the reference tables give effective months for selecting rows, not the payroll month itself.

Hmm, but consider: maybe the case intends the payroll_month to be derived. No, R1 says gross_pay and payroll_month are required.

Let me just be careful and check the reference tables anyway to be thorough. Actually, it doesn't matter for the decision. But let me do it to be safe—maybe there's info.

Actually the decision is clear. But let me reconsider: is there a possibility that the record is malformed and payroll_month is elsewhere? The list shows only one document. Let me proceed.

I'll provide the clarify answer.

Explanation: The payroll record does not include a payroll_month, so the applicable reference row cannot be selected. Ask for the payroll month (YYYY-MM, 2026).

Clauses: R1 and R7.

The payroll record lacks payroll_month. Per R7 step 2, return clarify with MISSING_PAYROLL_MONTH, citing R1 and R7.

The gross_pay is present. So step 1 passes, step 2 triggers.

Answer JSON:
{
  "decision": "clarify",
  "reason_code": "MISSING_PAYROLL_MONTH",
  "clauses": ["R1", "R7"],
  "explanation": "..."
}