Let me start by listing the documents and getting the reference tables. Actually, I need to first see the case inputs. Let me call list_documents and lookup_reference (both halves) — but wait, I don't know the payroll month yet. The reference lookup just gives rates for first-half and second-half; I can call them in parallel with list_documents since they're independent.

Now read the payroll, contract, and amendment documents.

Payroll month: 2026-07 → second-half reference row: rate 0.04, cap 4000.00, deduction cap 400.00, free 1000.00, upper 2800.00, middle_rate 0.14, upper_rate 0.24.

Inputs:
- gross_pay: 5990.05
- payroll_month: 2026-07 (covered by second-half row)
- allowed_deduction: 77.72

Check R7 order:
1. gross_pay present. OK.
2. payroll_month present. OK.
3. 2026-07 has a reference row (second-half). OK.
4. contract_gross_pay present? The contract document has gross_pay 5990.06, which differs from payroll gross_pay 5990.05. Is there an amendment that resolves it? Amendment: gross_pay 5995.06, effective_month 2026-07 (not later than payroll month 2026-07 ✓), approved true ✓, but its amount (5995.06) must equal the payroll record's gross pay (5990.05). 5995.06 ≠ 5990.05, so the amendment does not resolve the conflict. Therefore decision: clarify, reason_code: CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY, citing R7 and R9.

Wait — but should I check whether the amendment resolves? R9: "An optional amendment has gross_pay, effective_month, and boolean approved. It resolves a contract conflict only if it is approved, its effective month is no later than the payroll month, and its amount equals the payroll record's gross pay." Here amount 5995.06 ≠ 5990.05, so it does not resolve. Hence CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY.

The R7 step 4 says: "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."

So the answer is clarify with reason_code CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY, clauses R7 and R9. For clarification include a short explanation naming the unresolved blocker and asking for its resolution.

Allowed deduction 77.72 is within cap 400.00 and within gross minus contribution... but since we clarify, no monetary fields.

Answer fields: decision, reason_code, clauses, explanation. Do not include calculated monetary fields.

Explanation: Contract gross pay 5990.06 differs from payroll gross pay 5990.05; the approved amendment effective 2026-07 has amount 5995.06, which does not equal the payroll record's gross pay, so it fails to resolve the conflict under R9. Ask for an approved amendment matching 5990.05 (or corrected records).

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

There's a payroll record, a contract, and an amendment. Let me read all three.

Let me analyze:

- Payroll record: gross_pay = 5990.05, payroll_month = 2026-07, allowed_deduction = 77.72
- Contract: gross_pay = 5990.06 (differs from payroll gross_pay 5990.05)
- Amendment: gross_pay = 5995.06, effective_month = 2026-07, approved = true

R7 check order:
1. Missing gross_pay? No, it's present (5990.05).
2. Missing payroll_month? No, 2026-07 present.
3. Month without reference row? 2026-07 is in 2026, so covered. Need to check lookup_reference for second-half (July is second half of the year? Let me check — "first-half" and "second-half" likely refer to halves of the year: months 01-06 first half, 07-12 second half). July 2026 would be second-half. Let me look up.
4. Conflicting gross pay? contract_gross_pay (5990.06) differs from gross_pay (5990.05). Amendment exists: approved = true, effective_month = 2026-07 which is no later than payroll month 2026-07, but its amount (5995.06) does not equal the payroll record's gross pay (5990.05). Per R9: "It resolves a contract conflict only if it is approved, its effective month is no later than the payroll month, and its amount equals the payroll record's gross pay. It does not automatically change gross pay. A draft, future, or different-amount amendment does not resolve a conflict."

So the amendment has a different amount (5995.06 ≠ 5990.05), so it does not resolve the conflict. Therefore decision: clarify, reason_code: CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY, citing R7 and R9.

Wait — but I should double check the order of checks. R7 says check in this order:
1. Missing gross_pay — no.
2. Missing payroll_month — no.
3. Month without reference row — 2026-07 should have a row. Let me verify via lookup_reference to be thorough. Actually, the conflict check comes after the reference row check. 2026 is covered per R1. So we proceed to check 4.
4. contract_gross_pay present and differs from gross_pay → check amendment under R9. Amendment approved, effective 2026-07 ≤ 2026-07, but amount 5995.06 ≠ 5990.05. Does not resolve. So clarify with CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY.

The answer: decision: "clarify", reason_code: "CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY", clauses: ["R7", "R9"], plus explanation.

For clarification, fields: decision, reason_code, clauses. Optional explanation string. Do not include calculated monetary fields.

Should I still look up the reference to confirm the month is covered? The month is 2026-07, covered by 2026 rules. But to be safe, let me check lookup_reference second-half to confirm a row exists for 2026-07. Actually, since the conflict check (step 4) comes after step 3, and step 3 requires confirming the month has a reference row, I should verify. If the month had no row, the answer would be NO_APPLICABLE_REFERENCE. 2026-07 is in 2026 which is covered, but the halves matter. Let me look up second-half to confirm July is covered.

The second-half reference covers 2026-07 (and 2026-12). So the month has a reference row — step 3 passes.

Step 4: contract_gross_pay = 5990.06 differs from gross_pay = 5990.05. Amendment: approved = true, effective_month = 2026-07 (no later than payroll month 2026-07), but amount 5995.06 ≠ payroll gross_pay 5990.05. Per R9, a different-amount amendment does not resolve the conflict. So the conflict is unresolved → clarify with CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY, citing R7 and R9.

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

No monetary fields for clarification. Include short explanation naming the unresolved blocker and asking for its resolution.

Let me start by listing documents and looking up the reference tables.

Now read the documents: payroll, contract, amendment.

Payroll month 2026-07 → second-half row: rate 0.04, cap 4000.00, deduction cap 400.00, free 1000.00, upper 2800.00, middle_rate 0.14, upper_rate 0.24.

Check R7 order:
1. gross_pay present: 5990.05 ✓
2. payroll_month present: 2026-07 ✓
3. Reference row exists for 2026-07 ✓
4. contract_gross_pay conflict: contract says 5990.06, payroll says 5990.05. They differ. Amendment: approved=true, effective_month 2026-07 ≤ 2026-07, but amount 5995.06 ≠ payroll gross 5990.05. So amendment does not resolve the conflict. → clarify with CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY, citing R7 and R9.

Wait — check R9: "It resolves a contract conflict only if it is approved, its effective month is no later than the payroll month, and its amount equals the payroll record's gross pay." Amendment amount 5995.06 ≠ 5990.05. So it does not resolve. Decision: clarify, reason_code CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY, citing R7 and R9.

No monetary fields returned for clarify cases. Fields: decision, reason_code, clauses, optional explanation.