← Heatmap / MiMo V2.6 Pro · Task 64
MiMo V2.6 Pro · Tool use · Task 64 (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 · 24.0s · $0.0012
| Component | Score | Clauses |
|---|---|---|
| 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 first.
Tool
[
{"id": "69589218e6f47d77-payroll", "kind": "payroll"},
{"id": "69589218e6f47d77-contract", "kind": "contract"},
{"id": "69589218e6f47d77-amendment", "kind": "amendment"}
]
Assistant
read_document(document_id="69589218e6f47d77-payroll")read_document(document_id="69589218e6f47d77-contract")read_document(document_id="69589218e6f47d77-amendment")Reasoning
Read all three.
Tool
{
"kind": "payroll",
"record": {"gross_pay": "6900.86", "payroll_month": "2026-11", "allowed_deduction": "338.48"}
}
Tool
{
"kind": "contract",
"gross_pay": "7000.86"
}
Tool
{
"kind": "amendment",
"gross_pay": "6900.86",
"approved": true,
"effective_month": "2026-12"
}
Assistant
lookup_reference(reference="second-half")Reasoning
Conflict: contract_gross_pay 7000.86 vs gross_pay 6900.86. Amendment: approved true, but effective_month 2026-12 is later than payroll month 2026-11. So it does NOT resolve the conflict (effective month must be no later than payroll month). Therefore decision clarify, reason_code CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY, citing R7 and R9.
But wait - should I still check reference row for 2026-11? The R7 order: 1 missing gross, 2 missing month, 3 no reference row, 4 conflict. The month2026-11 is within 2026. Reference rows: first-half and second-half. 2026-11 is second-half presumably. Actually check whether reference row exists. But the check order says check in this order; conflict is #4. Before returning conflict we should verify #3 doesn't apply. Let me look up second-half to be safe. Actually the clarification for conflict cites R7 and R9 regardless. But if no applicable reference, that would come first. Months in 2026 are covered ("Only 2026 is covered"). Rows split first-half/second-half, so 2026-11 has a row. I could look it up to confirm but it's not strictly needed. Let me do lookup to confirm second-half covers it.
Actually the conflict check happens regardless; but to be safe, verify the reference exists.
Tool
{
"reference": "second-half",
"months": ["2026-07", "2026-12"],
"rate": "0.08",
"cap": "4000.00",
"deduction": "400.00",
"free": "900.00",
"upper": "3300.00",
"middle_rate": "0.10",
"upper_rate": "0.24"
}
Assistant
{
"decision": "clarify",
"reason_code": "CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY",
"clauses": ["R7", "R9"],
"explanation": "The payroll record gross_pay 6900.86 conflicts with contract_gross_pay 7000.86, and the amendment (6900.86, approved) has effective_month 2026-12, which is later than payroll month 2026-11, so it does not resolve the conflict. Please provide an approved amendment effective no later than 2026-11 or confirm the correct gross pay."
}
Reasoning
2026-11 falls in second-half (2026-07 through 2026-12), so a reference row applies. Now check conflict: contract_gross_pay 7000.86 != gross_pay 6900.86. Amendment: approved, effective_month 2026-12 which is later than payroll month 2026-11 → does not resolve. So clarify, CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY, clauses R7, R9. Answer JSON: decision clarify, reason_code, clauses ["R7","R9"], explanation naming blocker and asking resolution.
Rollout #2 100.0% passed · 4 tool calls · 20.4s · $0.0007
| Component | Score | Clauses |
|---|---|---|
| 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": "69589218e6f47d77-payroll", "kind": "payroll"},
{"id": "69589218e6f47d77-contract", "kind": "contract"},
{"id": "69589218e6f47d77-amendment", "kind": "amendment"}
]
Assistant
read_document(document_id="69589218e6f47d77-payroll")read_document(document_id="69589218e6f47d77-contract")read_document(document_id="69589218e6f47d77-amendment")Reasoning
Read all three documents.
Tool
{
"kind": "payroll",
"record": {"gross_pay": "6900.86", "payroll_month": "2026-11", "allowed_deduction": "338.48"}
}
Tool
{
"kind": "contract",
"gross_pay": "7000.86"
}
Tool
{
"kind": "amendment",
"gross_pay": "6900.86",
"approved": true,
"effective_month": "2026-12"
}
Assistant
{
"decision": "clarify",
"reason_code": "CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY",
"clauses": ["R7", "R9"],
"explanation": "The payroll gross_pay 6900.86 differs from the contract gross_pay 7000.86, and the amendment (6900.86, approved) is effective 2026-12, later than payroll month 2026-11, so it does not resolve the conflict. Please provide an approved amendment effective no later than 2026-11 or confirm the correct gross pay."
}
Reasoning
Payroll month 2026-11. Contract gross7000.86 differs from payroll gross 6900.86 → conflict. Amendment: approved=true, effective_month2026-12, which is later than payroll month 2026-11 → does not resolve. So CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY, cite R7 and R9. Order of checks: gross_pay present, payroll_month present, reference row check (2026-11 covered? yes, 2026 covered; second-half row covers 2026-07..2026-12). Then conflict check #4. So clarify with CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY.
Rollout #3 100.0% passed · 5 tool calls · 19.3s · $0.0010
| Component | Score | Clauses |
|---|---|---|
| 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": "69589218e6f47d77-payroll", "kind": "payroll"},
{"id": "69589218e6f47d77-contract", "kind": "contract"},
{"id": "69589218e6f47d77-amendment", "kind": "amendment"}
]
Assistant
read_document(document_id="69589218e6f47d77-payroll")read_document(document_id="69589218e6f47d77-contract")read_document(document_id="69589218e6f47d77-amendment")Reasoning
Read all three.
Tool
{
"kind": "payroll",
"record": {"gross_pay": "6900.86", "payroll_month": "2026-11", "allowed_deduction": "338.48"}
}
Tool
{
"kind": "contract",
"gross_pay": "7000.86"
}
Tool
{
"kind": "amendment",
"gross_pay": "6900.86",
"approved": true,
"effective_month": "2026-12"
}
Assistant
lookup_reference(reference="second-half")Reasoning
Payroll month 2026-11, gross 6900.86. Contract gross 7000.86 differs from payroll gross 6900.86 → conflict. Amendment: approved, effective_month 2026-12 (later than payroll month 2026-11) → does not resolve. So CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY under R7 and R9. But check order: gross_pay present, payroll_month present, reference row exists (second-half presumably covers 2026-11). Check reference row for month applicability first? Order in R7: 1 missing gross, 2 missing month, 3 no reference row, 4 conflict. Let me verify reference row exists — lookup second-half. Actually clarification is decided at step 4 regardless, but I should check row existence for order. Let me lookup.
Tool
{
"reference": "second-half",
"months": ["2026-07", "2026-12"],
"rate": "0.08",
"cap": "4000.00",
"deduction": "400.00",
"free": "900.00",
"upper": "3300.00",
"middle_rate": "0.10",
"upper_rate": "0.24"
}
Assistant
{
"decision": "clarify",
"reason_code": "CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY",
"clauses": ["R7", "R9"],
"explanation": "The contract gross pay (7000.86) differs from the payroll gross pay (6900.86), and the only amendment is effective 2026-12, later than payroll month 2026-11, so it does not resolve the conflict. Please provide an approved amendment effective no later than 2026-11 matching the payroll gross pay, or confirm the correct gross pay."
}
Reasoning
The second-half row covers 2026-07 through 2026-12, so 2026-11 is covered. Now conflict: contract 7000.86 ≠ payroll 6900.86. Amendment approved but effective 2026-12 > 2026-11 → does not resolve. Clarify CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY, clauses R7 and R9.