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

The payroll record has gross_pay: 3229.23 and allowed_deduction: 40.33. But no payroll_month is given. Let me check the document again — the record only contains gross_pay and allowed_deduction. There's no payroll_month field.

Per R7: Missing `payroll_month`: return `decision: "clarify"` and `reason_code: "MISSING_PAYROLL_MONTH"`, citing R1 and R7.

Wait, but the order of checks: 1. Missing gross_pay first, 2. Missing payroll_month. Gross pay is present (3229.23). Payroll month is missing. So the answer is clarify with MISSING_PAYROLL_MONTH.

Also, there might be a case schedule for reference tables — but since payroll_month is missing, we can't select a row anyway. Should I check lookup_reference? The rules say a case may include an authoritative reference_tables schedule. In tool mode this schedule is available only through lookup_reference. But since the month is missing, no calculation can be done. The clarification is based on the missing month, not on reference rows.

Do I need to call lookup_reference? Not necessary — the blocker is the missing payroll_month. The answer fields for clarify: decision, reason_code, clauses, plus optional explanation. No monetary fields.

Clauses: R1 and R7.

Let me produce the JSON:

{
  "decision": "clarify",
  "reason_code": "MISSING_PAYROLL_MONTH",
  "clauses": ["R1", "R7"],
  "explanation": "The payroll record supplies gross_pay 3229.23 and allowed_deduction 40.33 but no payroll_month (YYYY-MM). Without the month, no reference row can be selected and no payslip can be calculated; please provide the payroll month."
}

No monetary fields for clarify. Good.

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

The payroll record has gross_pay: 3229.23 and allowed_deduction: 40.33, but no payroll_month. Wait, let me check — the record shows only gross_pay and allowed_deduction. There's no payroll_month field.

Per R7:
1. Missing gross_pay → MISSING_GROSS_PAY
2. Missing payroll_month → MISSING_PAYROLL_MONTH

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

Wait, but should I check if there's an amendment or contract_gross_pay? No — the record only has gross_pay and allowed_deduction. No payroll_month. Per R7 order: gross_pay is present, payroll_month is missing → clarify with MISSING_PAYROLL_MONTH.

For clarification: "For these cases do not return calculated monetary fields. Missing required values include explicit null." Hmm, "Missing required values include explicit null" — this means missing required values should include explicit null? The clarify fields are decision, reason_code, clauses. There's no field for missing values in clarify. The allowed answer fields for clarify: decision, reason_code, clauses. So just those, plus optional explanation.

Actually wait — maybe I should double-check the document. The record might have more fields. It shows {"kind": "payroll", "record": {"gross_pay": "3229.23", "allowed_deduction": "40.33"}}. No payroll_month, no contract_gross_pay, no amendment.

So the answer: decision "clarify", reason_code "MISSING_PAYROLL_MONTH", clauses ["R1", "R7"], with a short explanation naming the unresolved blocker and asking for its resolution.

Do I need lookup_reference? No — no month to look up. No calculate needed.

The explanation should name the unresolved blocker: payroll_month is missing, so no reference row can be selected, and ask for the payroll month.

Let me start by listing the documents to see what inputs are available.

The payroll record has gross_pay "3229.23" and allowed_deduction "40.33", but no payroll_month. According to R7:

1. Missing gross_pay → clarify MISSING_GROSS_PAY
2. Missing payroll_month → clarify MISSING_PAYROLL_MONTH, citing R1 and R7.

The record is missing payroll_month. So the decision is clarify with reason_code "MISSING_PAYROLL_MONTH".

Per R7: "For these cases do not return calculated monetary fields. Missing required values include explicit null."

The clarify answer fields: decision, reason_code, clauses. Optional explanation string.

The reason_code should be "MISSING_PAYROLL_MONTH" and clauses R1, R7. Should I include explicit null for missing values? The rule says "Missing required values include explicit null." But the allowed answer fields for clarify are: decision, reason_code, clauses (plus optional explanation). Hmm, "Use exactly the required answer fields" — the required fields for clarify are decision, reason_code, clauses. The R7 text says missing required values include explicit null — but that might conflict with "Do not include input-only fields such as payroll_month". Actually payroll_month is an input field, not an answer field. The allowed answer fields list says: clarify uses decision, reason_code, clauses. So I should only include those plus optional explanation.

I'll return:
{
  "decision": "clarify",
  "reason_code": "MISSING_PAYROLL_MONTH",
  "clauses": ["R1", "R7"],
  "explanation": "..."
}

No need for lookup_reference or calculate since we can't determine the month. The explanation should name the unresolved blocker and ask for its resolution.