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

The payroll month is 2025-11, which is outside 2026. Only 2026 is covered. Dates outside 2026 require clarification under R7 (NO_APPLICABLE_REFERENCE), citing R1 and R7.

Per R7 item 3: A month without a reference row: return decision "clarify" and reason_code "NO_APPLICABLE_REFERENCE", citing R1 and R7. Do not extrapolate an old row.

But wait — R1 also says "A case may include an authoritative reference_tables schedule for first-half and second-half. When supplied, its numeric values replace the defaults above for that case only." In tool mode this schedule is available only through lookup_reference. Should I check lookup_reference to see if there's a schedule covering 2025-11? The lookup_reference tool reads "first-half or second-half payroll reference rates and effective months." Let me check both halves to see the effective months — maybe the schedule covers 2025-11. The defaults only cover 2026, but the case schedule might cover other months. Let me look up both first-half and second-half to check.

Also, R4 says: "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." So even if the deduction is valid, we don't calculate.

Let me check lookup_reference for both halves to confirm no row covers 2025-11.

Both reference rows cover only 2026 months: first-half covers 2026-01 through 2026-06, second-half covers 2026-07 through 2026-12. The payroll month is 2025-11, which has no applicable reference row.

Per R1: "Only 2026 is covered. Dates outside 2026 require clarification under R7."
Per R7 item 3: return decision "clarify", reason_code "NO_APPLICABLE_REFERENCE", citing R1 and R7. Do not extrapolate an old row.

Do not return calculated monetary fields. The allowed_deduction of 102.05 is structurally valid (non-negative, two decimals, under the largest reference deduction cap of 400.00), but we still don't calculate a payslip.

Answer fields for clarify: decision, reason_code, clauses. Optional explanation string naming the unresolved blocker.

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

The payroll month is 2025-11. The rules say only 2026 is covered by reference rows. Dates outside 2026 require clarification under R7. Let me verify by checking the reference tables — first-half and second-half. But per R1, only 2026 is covered. 2025-11 is outside 2026, so this requires clarification with reason_code "NO_APPLICABLE_REFERENCE", citing R1 and R7.

Let me still check lookup_reference to confirm the coverage (the schedule may show months covered). Actually, the rule says "Select the reference row below using the payroll month" and "Only 2026 is covered. Dates outside 2026 require clarification under R7." So 2025-11 → NO_APPLICABLE_REFERENCE.

Should I check the lookup_reference anyway to confirm? The instructions say reference rows are available only through lookup_reference. To be thorough, I could check second-half (2025-11 would be second half if it were covered). But the rule explicitly states only 2026 is covered. Let me verify with lookup_reference to be safe — it may show the effective months. I'll check second-half since November falls in the second half of the year.

Actually, let me think about whether calling lookup_reference is necessary. The rule R1 states clearly: "Only 2026 is covered. Dates outside 2026 require clarification under R7." The payroll month is 2025-11, which is outside 2026. So the decision is clarify with NO_APPLICABLE_REFERENCE.

But to be diligent, I could verify the reference schedule's effective months. The lookup_reference tool returns "first-half or second-half payroll reference rates and effective months." Let me call it to confirm the effective months don't include 2025. This is a reasonable verification step. I'll call lookup_reference for second-half (November is in the second half of the year).

The second-half reference covers months 2026-07 through 2026-12. The payroll month is 2025-11, which is not covered. Per R1 and R7, I must return clarify with reason_code "NO_APPLICABLE_REFERENCE", citing R1 and R7. No monetary calculated fields should be returned.

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

The payroll month is 2025-11. The rules say only 2026 is covered. Let me check the reference tables via lookup_reference to confirm whether 2025-11 has a row. The rules state "Only 2026 is covered. Dates outside 2026 require clarification under R7." But I should verify with lookup_reference — the schedule might cover months. Let me look up both halves to check coverage. Actually, the lookup_reference takes "first-half" or "second-half" — likely referring to halves of the year or of the reference table. Let me check both.

The payroll month is 2025-11, which is not covered by any reference row (both halves cover only 2026 months). Per R7 item 3: "A month without a reference row: return decision: 'clarify' and reason_code: 'NO_APPLICABLE_REFERENCE', citing R1 and R7. Do not extrapolate an old row."

So the answer is a clarification. Required fields for clarify: decision, reason_code, clauses. Optional explanation string naming the unresolved blocker and asking for resolution.

Note R4 says: "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." So we don't calculate.

Answer JSON:
{
  "decision": "clarify",
  "reason_code": "NO_APPLICABLE_REFERENCE",
  "clauses": ["R1", "R7"],
  "explanation": "..."
}