Let me work through this payroll record.

Inputs:
- Payroll record: gross_pay = 5319.10, payroll_month = 2026-04, allowed_deduction = 207.83
- Contract: gross_pay = 5419.10 (differs from payroll gross_pay)
- Amendment: gross_pay = 5319.10, effective_month = 2026-04, approved = false

Reference schedule for first-half (2026-01 through 2026-06):
- rate: 0.05
- cap: 5000.00
- deduction cap: 400.00
- free: 1000.00
- upper: 2800.00
- middle_rate: 0.08
- upper_rate: 0.24

Step 1: Check conflicts per R7 order.
1. gross_pay present: 5319.10 ✓
2. payroll_month present: 2026-04 ✓
3. Month has reference row: 2026-04 is in first-half, schedule supplied ✓
4. contract_gross_pay = 5419.10 differs from gross_pay = 5319.10. Amendment exists but is not approved. Per R9, amendment resolves conflict only if approved, effective month ≤ payroll month, and amount equals payroll record's gross pay. Here approved = false, so it does not resolve. Therefore clarify with reason_code CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY, citing R7 and R9.

Wait — check R7 point 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 decision: "clarify" and reason_code: "CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY", citing R7 and R9."

The amendment is not approved, so it doesn't resolve the conflict. So we must return clarify with CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY.

Answer format for clarify: decision, reason_code, clauses. Optional explanation string. Do not include input-only fields like contract_gross_pay or amendment.

So:
{
  "decision": "clarify",
  "reason_code": "CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY",
  "clauses": ["R7", "R9"],
  "explanation": "The contract gross pay 5419.10 differs from the payroll gross pay 5319.10, and the amendment is not approved (approved=false), so it cannot resolve the conflict under R9. Provide an approved amendment matching the payroll gross pay or otherwise resolve the discrepancy."
}

That's the answer. No monetary fields.

Let me process this payroll record.

Inputs:
- Payroll record: gross_pay = 5319.10, payroll_month = 2026-04, allowed_deduction = 207.83
- Contract: gross_pay = 5419.10
- Amendment: gross_pay = 5319.10, effective_month = 2026-04, approved = false

Reference schedule (authoritative case schedule):
- first-half (2026-01 through 2026-06): rate 0.05, cap 5000.00, deduction 400.00, free 1000.00, upper 2800.00, middle_rate 0.08, upper_rate 0.24
- second-half: rate 0.05, cap 4500.00, deduction 400.00, free 1000.00, upper 3300.00, middle_rate 0.12, upper_rate 0.18

Payroll month 2026-04 → first-half row.

Step 1: Check R7 order.
1. gross_pay present: 5319.10. OK.
2. payroll_month present: 2026-04. OK.
3. Reference row exists (first-half for 2026-04). OK.
4. contract_gross_pay present (5419.10) and differs from gross_pay (5319.10). Amendment present: approved = false → draft/unapproved amendment does not resolve conflict. So → clarify with reason_code CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY, citing R7 and R9.

Wait — check the amendment conditions under R9: approved must be true; it's false. So the amendment does not resolve the conflict. Therefore decision: clarify, reason_code: "CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY", clauses: ["R7", "R9"].

Do not return calculated monetary fields.

Explanation: short, naming the unresolved blocker and asking for resolution. The contract gross pay (5419.10) differs from payroll gross pay (5319.10), and the amendment is not approved, so neither source takes precedence.

Output JSON:

{
  "decision": "clarify",
  "reason_code": "CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY",
  "clauses": ["R7", "R9"],
  "explanation": "..."
}

No monetary fields. Money must be strings with two decimals — but we're not returning money fields here.

The explanation should name the unresolved blocker: contract gross pay 5419.10 conflicts with payroll gross pay 5319.10; the amendment is not approved so it cannot resolve the conflict; ask for an approved amendment matching the payroll gross pay or corrected records.

Let me process this payroll record.

Inputs:
- payroll record: gross_pay 5319.10, payroll_month 2026-04, allowed_deduction 207.83
- contract gross_pay 5419.10 (differs from payroll gross_pay 5319.10)
- amendment: gross_pay 5319.10, effective_month 2026-04, approved: false

The amendment is not approved, so it does not resolve the conflict. Under R7.4, contract_gross_pay present and differs from gross_pay → clarify with reason_code CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY, citing R7 and R9.

Wait, check R7 order:
1. Missing gross_pay — no, present.
2. Missing payroll_month — no, present.
3. Month without reference row — 2026-04 is covered (first-half). Present.
4. contract_gross_pay present and differs → clarify CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY, citing R7 and R9.

The amendment is approved: false → draft amendment does not resolve conflict (R9). So decision is clarify.

Answer format: clarify uses decision, reason_code, clauses. Optional explanation string permitted. For clarification include a short explanation naming the unresolved blocker and asking for its resolution.

Do not include input-only fields like payroll_month, contract_gross_pay, amendment.

JSON:
{
  "decision": "clarify",
  "reason_code": "CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY",
  "clauses": ["R7", "R9"],
  "explanation": "The contract gross pay (5419.10) conflicts with the payroll record gross pay (5319.10), and the amendment is not approved, so it cannot resolve the conflict under R9. Please supply an approved amendment matching the payroll gross pay or otherwise resolve the discrepancy."
}

Wait — should the explanation mention the amounts? It says "short explanation naming the unresolved blocker and asking for its resolution." Mentioning amounts is fine. Actually, should I mention contract_gross_pay amount? The rule says don't include input-only fields as answer fields — explanation text can reference them. To be safe, I could mention it but it's fine. Let me keep it concise.

Citations: unresolved contract conflicts cite R7 and R9. Correct.