Luma Payroll Gym
Rules Report
← Heatmap / MiMo V2.6 Pro · Task 36
MiMo V2.6 Pro · Tool use · Task 36 (Traps, conflicting pay (future amendment)) Mean 100.0%
Field Expected Rollout #1 (100%) Rollout #2 (100%) Rollout #3 (100%)
decision clarify clarify clarify clarify
reason code CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY
clauses R7 R9 R7 R9 R7 R9 R7 R9
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 · 5 tool calls · 27.3s · $0.0012
ComponentScoreClauses
decision 100.0% R7 R9
exact 100.0% R7 R9
field accuracy 100.0% R7 R9
citations 100.0% R7 R9
explanation 100.0% R7 R9
Assistant
list_documents()
Reasoning 
Let me start by listing documents.
Tool
[
  {"id": "d2fe43d30bdb33d9-payroll", "kind": "payroll"},
  {"id": "d2fe43d30bdb33d9-contract", "kind": "contract"},
  {"id": "d2fe43d30bdb33d9-amendment", "kind": "amendment"}
]
Assistant
read_document(document_id="d2fe43d30bdb33d9-payroll")read_document(document_id="d2fe43d30bdb33d9-contract")read_document(document_id="d2fe43d30bdb33d9-amendment")
Reasoning 
Read all three documents.
Tool
{
  "kind": "payroll",
  "record": {"gross_pay": "2300.95", "payroll_month": "2026-02", "allowed_deduction": "272.78"}
}
Tool
{
  "kind": "contract",
  "gross_pay": "1800.95"
}
Tool
{
  "kind": "amendment",
  "gross_pay": "2300.95",
  "approved": true,
  "effective_month": "2026-03"
}
Assistant
lookup_reference(reference="first-half")
Reasoning 
Payroll month 2026-02, gross_pay 2300.95. Contract gross pay 1800.95 differs from payroll gross pay 2300.95 → conflict. Amendment: gross_pay 2300.95 matches payroll gross pay, approved = true, effective_month 2026-03 which is later than payroll month 2026-02. The amendment must have effective month no later than the payroll month. 2026-03 > 2026-02, so it does NOT resolve the conflict. Therefore return clarify with CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY, citing R7 and R9.

Order of checks in R7: gross_pay present, payroll_month present, reference row exists... check 3 says month without reference row. Hmm, should I check reference row first? The order lists checks1-4. So check 3 comes before check 4. Let me look up reference first-half (2026-02 is in first half).
Tool
{
  "reference": "first-half",
  "months": ["2026-01", "2026-06"],
  "rate": "0.07",
  "cap": "3500.00",
  "deduction": "400.00",
  "free": "1200.00",
  "upper": "3300.00",
  "middle_rate": "0.10",
  "upper_rate": "0.22"
}
Assistant
{
  "decision": "clarify",
  "reason_code": "CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY",
  "clauses": ["R7", "R9"],
  "explanation": "Contract gross pay 1800.95 differs from payroll gross pay 2300.95; the amendment (2300.95, approved) is effective 2026-03, later than payroll month 2026-02, so it does not resolve the conflict. Please provide an approved amendment effective no later than 2026-02 matching 2300.95, or confirm the correct gross pay."
}
Reasoning 
2026-02 is covered by the first-half row. So checks 1-3 pass. Check 4: contract_gross_pay present (1800.95) and differs from gross_pay (2300.95). Amendment: approved=true, effective_month 2026-03 which is later than payroll month 2026-02 → does not resolve. So clarify with CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY, clauses R7 and R9.
Rollout #2 100.0% passed · 4 tool calls · 26.4s · $0.0007
ComponentScoreClauses
decision 100.0% R7 R9
exact 100.0% R7 R9
field accuracy 100.0% R7 R9
citations 100.0% R7 R9
explanation 100.0% R7 R9
Assistant
list_documents()
Reasoning 
Let me list documents.
Tool
[
  {"id": "d2fe43d30bdb33d9-payroll", "kind": "payroll"},
  {"id": "d2fe43d30bdb33d9-contract", "kind": "contract"},
  {"id": "d2fe43d30bdb33d9-amendment", "kind": "amendment"}
]
Assistant
read_document(document_id="d2fe43d30bdb33d9-payroll")read_document(document_id="d2fe43d30bdb33d9-contract")read_document(document_id="d2fe43d30bdb33d9-amendment")
Reasoning 
Read all three.
Tool
{
  "kind": "payroll",
  "record": {"gross_pay": "2300.95", "payroll_month": "2026-02", "allowed_deduction": "272.78"}
}
Tool
{
  "kind": "contract",
  "gross_pay": "1800.95"
}
Tool
{
  "kind": "amendment",
  "gross_pay": "2300.95",
  "approved": true,
  "effective_month": "2026-03"
}
Assistant
{
  "decision": "clarify",
  "reason_code": "CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY",
  "clauses": ["R7", "R9"],
  "explanation": "Payroll gross_pay 2300.95 conflicts with contract gross_pay 1800.95. The amendment is approved but its effective_month 2026-03 is later than the payroll month 2026-02, so it does not resolve the conflict. Please provide an approved amendment effective no later than 2026-02 matching 2300.95, or confirm the correct gross pay."
}
Reasoning 
Conflict: contract 1800.95 vs payroll 2300.95. Amendment: approved true, effective_month 2026-03, which is later than payroll month 2026-02 → does not resolve. So CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY, cite R7 and R9.

Wait — order of checks: 1 missing gross, 2 missing month, 3 no reference, 4 conflict. The conflict check happens before calculation. Should I still check reference? The order says check in this order. Month 2026-02 has a reference presumably (2026 covered). Conflict applies → clarify.

Return clarify with reason CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY, clauses R7, R9.
Rollout #3 100.0% passed · 5 tool calls · 39.9s · $0.0010
ComponentScoreClauses
decision 100.0% R7 R9
exact 100.0% R7 R9
field accuracy 100.0% R7 R9
citations 100.0% R7 R9
explanation 100.0% R7 R9
Assistant
list_documents()
Reasoning 
Let me list documents.
Tool
[
  {"id": "d2fe43d30bdb33d9-payroll", "kind": "payroll"},
  {"id": "d2fe43d30bdb33d9-contract", "kind": "contract"},
  {"id": "d2fe43d30bdb33d9-amendment", "kind": "amendment"}
]
Assistant
read_document(document_id="d2fe43d30bdb33d9-payroll")read_document(document_id="d2fe43d30bdb33d9-contract")read_document(document_id="d2fe43d30bdb33d9-amendment")
Reasoning 
Read all three.
Tool
{
  "kind": "payroll",
  "record": {"gross_pay": "2300.95", "payroll_month": "2026-02", "allowed_deduction": "272.78"}
}
Tool
{
  "kind": "contract",
  "gross_pay": "1800.95"
}
Tool
{
  "kind": "amendment",
  "gross_pay": "2300.95",
  "approved": true,
  "effective_month": "2026-03"
}
Assistant
calculate(program="conflict_resolved = 0")
Reasoning 
Conflict: payroll gross 2300.95 vs contract 1800.95. Amendment is approved and amount matches payroll (2300.95), but effective_month 2026-03 is later than payroll month 2026-02 — future. So it does not resolve the conflict. Per R7 item 4 and R9: clarify with CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY, citing R7 and R9.

Wait — but should I check reference first? Order of checks in R7: gross_pay missing, payroll_month missing, no reference row, conflict. Conflict check is last. But the conflict is clear regardless. Actually let me still verify reference exists for 2026-02? Not needed since conflict returns clarify. But check order says check in this order; conflict is #4, and it triggers. Reference lookup is not necessary but harmless. The answer is clarify.

Clauses: R7 and R9. Explanation naming unresolved blocker and asking for resolution.
Tool
{
  "results": {"conflict_resolved": "0"}
}
Assistant
{
  "decision": "clarify",
  "reason_code": "CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY",
  "clauses": ["R7", "R9"],
  "explanation": "The payroll record shows gross_pay 2300.95 while the contract shows 1800.95. The only amendment, although approved and matching 2300.95, is effective 2026-03, later than payroll month 2026-02, so it does not resolve the conflict. Please provide an approved amendment effective no later than 2026-02 with amount 2300.95, or confirm which gross pay figure is correct."
}
Reasoning 
Amendment effective 2026-03 > payroll month 2026-02, so it does not resolve. Clarify.