← Heatmap / GLM 5.3 Flash · Task 48
GLM 5.3 Flash · Tool use · Task 48 (Traps, missing gross pay)
Mean 50.0%
| Field | Expected | Rollout #1 (100%) | Rollout #2 (100%) | Rollout #3 (-50%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| decision | clarify | clarify | clarify | (malformed) |
| reason code | MISSING_GROSS_PAY | MISSING_GROSS_PAY | MISSING_GROSS_PAY | (malformed) |
| clauses | R1 R7 | R1 R7 | R1 R7 | (malformed) |
Prompt
Process this monthly payroll record under the supplied rulebook. Return the R6 or R7 JSON answer. Retrieve the case inputs with list_documents and read_document. Reference rows are available only through lookup_reference. Use calculate for exact decimal arithmetic.
Rollouts
Rollout #1 100.0% passed · 3 tool calls · 8.0s · $0.0010
| Component | Score | Clauses |
|---|---|---|
| decision | 100.0% | R1 R7 |
| exact | 100.0% | R1 R7 |
| field accuracy | 100.0% | R1 R7 |
| citations | 100.0% | R1 R7 |
| explanation | 100.0% | R1 R7 |
Assistant
list_documents()Reasoning
Let me start by listing the documents to see what inputs we have.
Tool
[
{"id": "5e2ce3610eaf2eaa-payroll", "kind": "payroll"}
]
Assistant
read_document(document_id="5e2ce3610eaf2eaa-payroll")Reasoning
Let me read the payroll document.
Tool
{
"kind": "payroll",
"record": {"payroll_month": "2026-09"}
}
Assistant
calculate(program="check = 1")Reasoning
The payroll record has only `payroll_month: 2026-09`, no `gross_pay`. Per R7 order of checks: 1. Missing `gross_pay`: return `decision: "clarify"` and `reason_code: "MISSING_GROSS_PAY"`, citing R1 and R7. So the answer is clarify with MISSING_GROSS_PAY. I don't need lookup_reference or calculate since the calculation can't proceed. The clarify answer fields: decision, reason_code, clauses, optional explanation. Clauses: R1 and R7.
Tool
{
"results": {"check": "1"}
}
Assistant
{
"decision": "clarify",
"reason_code": "MISSING_GROSS_PAY",
"clauses": ["R1", "R7"],
"explanation": "The payroll record for 2026-09 contains only payroll_month and no gross_pay. R1 requires gross_pay for every calculation, and R7 directs clarification with reason_code MISSING_GROSS_PAY when it is missing. Please supply the gross pay so the payslip can be calculated."
}
Reasoning
The payroll record is missing gross_pay entirely. Under R7 check order, item 1: Missing gross_pay → clarify with reason_code MISSING_GROSS_PAY, citing R1 and R7. No monetary fields should be returned.
Rollout #2 100.0% passed · 3 tool calls · 7.2s · $0.0007
| Component | Score | Clauses |
|---|---|---|
| decision | 100.0% | R1 R7 |
| exact | 100.0% | R1 R7 |
| field accuracy | 100.0% | R1 R7 |
| citations | 100.0% | R1 R7 |
| explanation | 100.0% | R1 R7 |
Assistant
list_documents()Reasoning
Let me start by listing the documents to get the case inputs.
Tool
[
{"id": "5e2ce3610eaf2eaa-payroll", "kind": "payroll"}
]
Assistant
read_document(document_id="5e2ce3610eaf2eaa-payroll")Tool
{
"kind": "payroll",
"record": {"payroll_month": "2026-09"}
}
Assistant
lookup_reference(reference="second-half")Reasoning
The payroll record has only `payroll_month: "2026-09"` — no `gross_pay`. Per R7 step 1: Missing `gross_pay` → clarify with reason_code "MISSING_GROSS_PAY", citing R1 and R7. Wait, let me double-check the document. It only contains payroll_month. No gross_pay, no contract_gross_pay, no amendment. So the blocker is missing gross_pay. Per R7: "Missing required values include explicit null." Hmm — "Missing required values include explicit null." That means explicit nulls count as missing. Here gross_pay is absent entirely, which is missing. Should I still look up the reference? The month 2026-09 is covered (only 2026 is covered), but the missing gross_pay check comes first in the order (step 1 before step 3). So decision: clarify, reason_code: MISSING_GROSS_PAY, citing R1 and R7. The answer format: clarify uses decision, reason_code, clauses. Optional explanation string permitted. Do not include calculated monetary fields. I don't strictly need lookup_reference since the blocker is missing gross_pay, and R7 order says missing gross_pay is checked first. I could optionally verify the month has a reference row, but the clarification reason is determined by the first check. The rules say check in this order; step 1 triggers first. I'll just return clarify. Fields: decision, reason_code, clauses. Explanation naming the unresolved blocker and asking for its resolution.
Tool
{
"reference": "second-half",
"months": ["2026-07", "2026-12"],
"rate": "0.04",
"cap": "4500.00",
"deduction": "400.00",
"free": "1200.00",
"upper": "3300.00",
"middle_rate": "0.12",
"upper_rate": "0.24"
}
Assistant
{
"decision": "clarify",
"reason_code": "MISSING_GROSS_PAY",
"clauses": ["R1", "R7"],
"explanation": "The payroll record for 2026-09 contains only payroll_month and no gross_pay (explicitly absent, treated as missing under R7). Gross pay is required by R1, so no payslip can be calculated even though 2026-09 has an applicable reference row. Please supply the employee's monthly gross_pay (and any allowed_deduction) to resolve this blocker."
}
Reasoning
The month 2026-09 is covered by the second-half reference row (months 2026-07 through 2026-12). But the record has no gross_pay at all. Per R7 order, step 1 applies: missing gross_pay → clarify with MISSING_GROSS_PAY, citing R1 and R7. Return JSON object without markdown fences, no prose. Fields: decision, reason_code, clauses, plus optional explanation.
Rollout #3 -50.0% malformed · 3 tool calls · 5.3s · $0.0012
| Component | Score | Clauses |
|---|---|---|
| decision | 0.0% | R1 R7 |
| exact | 0.0% | R1 R7 |
| field accuracy | 0.0% | R1 R7 |
| citations | 0.0% | R1 R7 |
Assistant
list_documents()Reasoning
Let me start by listing the documents to see what's in this case.
Tool
[
{"id": "5e2ce3610eaf2eaa-payroll", "kind": "payroll"}
]
Assistant
read_document(document_id="5e2ce3610eaf2eaa-payroll")Tool
{
"kind": "payroll",
"record": {"payroll_month": "2026-09"}
}
Assistant
lookup_reference(reference="second-half")Reasoning
The payroll record only has `payroll_month: "2026-09"` and no `gross_pay`. According to R7, the check order is: 1. Missing `gross_pay`: return `decision: "clarify"` and `reason_code: "MISSING_GROSS_PAY"`, citing R1 and R7. So the answer is clarify with MISSING_GROSS_PAY. No monetary fields. Should I check the reference tables? Not needed — gross pay is missing, so clarification is required regardless. The order of checks: missing gross_pay is checked first. The answer format: clarify uses decision, reason_code, clauses. Optional explanation string naming the unresolved blocker and asking for its resolution. Clauses: R1 and R7.
Tool
{
"reference": "second-half",
"months": ["2026-07", "2026-12"],
"rate": "0.04",
"cap": "4500.00",
"deduction": "400.00",
"free": "1200.00",
"upper": "3300.00",
"middle_rate": "0.12",
"upper_rate": "0.24"
}
Assistant
```json
{
"decision": "clarify",
"reason_code": "MISSING_GROSS_PAY",
"clauses": ["R1", "R7"],
"explanation": "The payroll record for 2026-09 contains only payroll_month and omits gross_pay, which is a required field under R1. Although a second-half reference row (2026-07 through 2026-12) covers the month, no payslip can be computed without gross pay. Please supply the employee's monthly gross_pay for 2026-09 so the calculation can proceed."
}
```
Reasoning
The month 2026-09 falls within the second-half row (2026-07 through 2026-12), so a reference row exists. However, the payroll record is missing `gross_pay`. Per R7 check order, item 1: Missing `gross_pay` → clarify with reason_code "MISSING_GROSS_PAY", citing R1 and R7. I don't need to calculate anything since gross pay is missing. Return the clarify JSON.