Let me start by listing the documents to see what's in this case.

One payroll document. Let me read it.

The payroll record has gross_pay = 1930.34 and allowed_deduction = 228.05, but no payroll_month. Per R7, missing payroll_month → clarify with reason_code "MISSING_PAYROLL_MONTH", citing R1 and R7.

Wait — let me double check the record. The record contains: gross_pay: "1930.34", allowed_deduction: "228.05". No payroll_month field. So it's missing payroll_month.

R7 order: 1. Missing gross_pay → MISSING_GROSS_PAY. 2. Missing payroll_month → MISSING_PAYROLL_MONTH. Gross pay is present, so check #2: missing payroll_month → clarify MISSING_PAYROLL_MONTH, citing R1 and R7.

No monetary fields in clarification. Fields: decision, reason_code, clauses, optional explanation.

I did a trivial calculate call but actually I don't need it. The record is missing payroll_month, so clarification is required. The answer:

decision: "clarify"
reason_code: "MISSING_PAYROLL_MONTH"
clauses: ["R1", "R7"]
explanation: The payroll record contains gross_pay and allowed_deduction but no payroll_month, so no reference row can be selected; please supply the payroll month in YYYY-MM format.

No monetary fields should be returned.

Let me start by listing the documents to get the case inputs.

The payroll record has gross_pay = 1930.34 and allowed_deduction = 228.05, but no payroll_month. Let me check the record again: {"gross_pay": "1930.34", "allowed_deduction": "228.05"}. There's no payroll_month field.

Per R7:
1. Missing gross_pay → MISSING_GROSS_PAY
2. Missing payroll_month → MISSING_PAYROLL_MONTH
3. Month without reference row → NO_APPLICABLE_REFERENCE
4. Conflicting gross pay → CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY

The record is missing payroll_month. So decision: "clarify", reason_code: "MISSING_PAYROLL_MONTH", citing R1 and R7.

Wait, but I should double-check whether there's a payroll_month elsewhere in the document. The record only contains gross_pay and allowed_deduction. No payroll_month, no contract_gross_pay, no amendment.

So the answer is clarify with MISSING_PAYROLL_MONTH. Fields for clarify: decision, reason_code, clauses. Optional explanation.

The explanation should name the unresolved blocker and ask for its resolution: the payroll month is missing, so no reference row can be selected; ask for the payroll month in YYYY-MM format.

Also note: allowed_deduction 228.05 is present — structurally valid? It's a non-negative decimal with two digits. But we can't validate against a cap without a row. Per R4, "When the month or applicable row is absent, accept structurally valid deductions up to the largest reference deduction cap for task validation, but do not calculate a payslip or assume a reference row." But that's about task validation, not about overriding the clarify decision. The missing payroll_month is the blocker — R7 step 2 applies before calculation.

Should I check the reference tables anyway? No — the month is missing, so no row can be selected. The clarify decision stands.

Return JSON:
{
  "decision": "clarify",
  "reason_code": "MISSING_PAYROLL_MONTH",
  "clauses": ["R1", "R7"],
  "explanation": "The payroll record supplies gross_pay and allowed_deduction but no payroll_month, so no reference row can be selected. Please provide the payroll month in YYYY-MM format."
}

Money fields not included since clarify doesn't return calculated monetary fields. No markdown fences. One JSON object.

Let me start by listing the documents to see what inputs we have.

The payroll record has gross_pay = 1930.34 and allowed_deduction = 228.05, but no payroll_month. Per R7 order:

1. Missing gross_pay? No, it's present.
2. Missing payroll_month? Yes — return clarify with reason_code "MISSING_PAYROLL_MONTH", citing R1 and R7.

No monetary fields should be returned. The answer fields for clarify: decision, reason_code, clauses, and optional explanation.

The record is missing payroll_month. Per R7 step 2, return clarify with reason_code MISSING_PAYROLL_MONTH, citing R1 and R7. No monetary fields.