Let me start by listing documents.

Read all three documents.

Conflict: payroll gross 3807.00 vs contract 3807.01. They differ. Amendment: approved=true, gross_pay=3807.00 (equals payroll gross), but effective_month=2026-06 which is later than payroll month 2026-04. So it does not resolve the conflict (effective month must be no later than payroll month). Therefore clarification: CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY, citing R7 and R9.

Order of checks: gross_pay present, payroll_month present, reference row exists (2026-04 → second-half? No — first-half covers months 1-6 presumably). Actually check 3: month without reference row. 2026-04 should have a row (first-half). But the conflict check comes after. Should I verify a reference row exists? Check order says check in order: missing gross, missing month, no reference, conflict. 2026-04 is within 2026, presumably covered. I could look up first-half to confirm, but the answer is clarify due to conflict regardless... unless no reference exists. Let me quickly check reference to be thorough — but not necessary? To follow order properly, I should confirm reference exists. Let me do lookup_reference first-half to confirm.

Actually, the conflict check is 4th; if no reference exists, reason would be NO_APPLICABLE_REFERENCE. Let me verify.

Reference row exists for 2026-04 (first-half covers 2026-01 through 2026-06). So check 3 passes. Check 4: contract_gross_pay 3807.01 differs from gross_pay 3807.00. Amendment: approved=true, amount 3807.00 equals payroll gross, but effective_month 2026-06 is later than payroll month 2026-04 → does not resolve. So clarify with CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY, citing R7 and R9.

No monetary fields.

Let me list documents first.

Read all three documents.

Contract gross pay 3807.01 differs from payroll gross_pay 3807.00 → conflict. Amendment: approved=true, effective_month2026-06 which is later than payroll month 2026-04 → does not resolve (effective month must be no later than payroll month). So conflict unresolved → clarify with CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY, cite R7 and R9.

Check order: gross_pay present, payroll_month present, month 2026-04 has reference row presumably. Conflict check is item 4. So decision clarify.

Let me list documents first.

Read all three documents.

Conflict: contract 3807.01 vs gross_pay 3807.00. Amendment: approved true, gross_pay 3807.00 matches payroll, but effective_month 2026-06 is later than payroll month 2026-04. So the amendment does NOT resolve the conflict (effective month must be no later than payroll month). So return clarify with CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY, citing R7 and R9.

Wait — but check R7 order: gross_pay present, payroll_month present, reference row exists for 2026-04? Only2026 covered — need to check first-half/second-half lookup. But even before, the conflict check is #4. Actually order: check required and conflicting inputs in order1-4. Reference row absence is #3, conflict is #4. But we might want to check whether reference row exists... Actually for a conflict, we return CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY regardless. But the order says check #3 first. However, since the conflict is unresolved, the answer is clarify either way (unless NO_APPLICABLE_REFERENCE also applies — then #3 takes priority). 2026-04 should have a reference row (first-half covers presumably Jan–Jun). Let me verify via lookup_reference to be safe.

Actually the answer for clarification: decision clarify, reason_code CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY, clauses R7 and R9. Let me still verify reference exists so I don't mislabel. Hmm, but if reference doesn't exist, reason code would be NO_APPLICABLE_REFERENCE.2026 is covered per R1 "Only 2026 is covered". Let me check lookup first-half quickly to confirm effective months.

2026-04 falls within first-half (2026-01 to 2026-06), so a reference row exists. Therefore check #4: contract_gross_pay 3807.01 differs from gross_pay 3807.00. Amendment approved, amount matches payroll gross_pay, but effective_month 2026-06 is later than payroll month 2026-04 → does not resolve. So CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY.

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