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

The payroll record has gross_pay = 3432.38 and allowed_deduction = 79.13, but no payroll_month. Under R7, missing payroll_month → clarify with reason_code "MISSING_PAYROLL_MONTH", citing R1 and R7.

Wait — let me double-check the record. The record shows only gross_pay and allowed_deduction. No payroll_month field. So the blocker is missing payroll_month.

Per R7 order: 1. Missing gross_pay — no, gross_pay is present. 2. Missing payroll_month — yes, missing. So decision: clarify, reason_code: MISSING_PAYROLL_MONTH, citing R1 and R7.

For clarification: include a short explanation naming the unresolved blocker and asking for its resolution. Allowed fields for clarify: decision, reason_code, clauses. Optional explanation string.

Should I include explicit nulls? "Missing required values include explicit null." But the answer fields allowed for clarify are decision, reason_code, clauses. The rule says "For these cases do not return calculated monetary fields. Missing required values include explicit null." Hmm, that could mean include payroll_month: null? But the allowed answer fields are decision, reason_code, clauses (plus optional explanation). The instruction says "Use exactly the required answer fields and only the clauses that directly govern the answer." So for clarify: decision, reason_code, clauses, and optional explanation. I shouldn't add payroll_month: null since it's not an allowed field... Actually "Missing required values include explicit null" might refer to cases where gross_pay is missing — but the allowed fields don't include gross_pay for clarify. I'll stick to the allowed fields: decision, reason_code, clauses, explanation.

Clauses: R1 and R7.

No need to look up reference since we can't select a row without a month. No calculation needed.

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

The payroll record has gross_pay = 3432.38 and allowed_deduction = 79.13. But there's no payroll_month field. Let me check the record again:

{"kind": "payroll", "record": {"gross_pay": "3432.38", "allowed_deduction": "79.13"}}

No payroll_month. According to 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

Gross pay is present (3432.38). Payroll_month is missing. So the answer is decision: "clarify", reason_code: "MISSING_PAYROLL_MONTH", citing R1 and R7.

Wait — check order: first check missing gross_pay — it's present. Then missing payroll_month — it's missing. So MISSING_PAYROLL_MONTH.

For clarification, fields: decision, reason_code, clauses. Optional explanation string naming the unresolved blocker and asking for its resolution.

Do I need to check the reference tables? No — the month is missing, so we can't select a row. The blocker is the missing payroll_month. No monetary fields should be returned.

Clauses: R1 (gross_pay and payroll_month are required) and R7 (missing payroll_month → clarify with reason_code MISSING_PAYROLL_MONTH).

Output JSON without Markdown fences:
{"decision": "clarify", "reason_code": "MISSING_PAYROLL_MONTH", "clauses": ["R1", "R7"], "explanation": "..."}

The explanation should name the unresolved blocker and ask for its resolution.

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

The payroll record has gross_pay "3432.38" and allowed_deduction "79.13", but no payroll_month. Let me check the record again — it only has gross_pay and allowed_deduction. There's no payroll_month field.

Per R7: check required and conflicting inputs in this order:
1. Missing gross_pay — present, fine.
2. Missing payroll_month — missing! Return decision "clarify" with reason_code "MISSING_PAYROLL_MONTH", citing R1 and R7.

Wait, but should I check the reference tables first? The order says check in this order. Payroll_month is missing, so reason_code is MISSING_PAYROLL_MONTH.

Actually, let me double-check the document — it only shows gross_pay and allowed_deduction. No payroll_month. So the answer is clarify with MISSING_PAYROLL_MONTH.

For clarification, the fields are decision, reason_code, clauses, and optional explanation. No monetary fields should be returned.

Citations: R1 and R7.

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