Let me list documents first.

Read both documents.

Payroll month 2026-11 → second-half of 2026? Wait, "first-half" and "second-half" reference rows. Presumably first-half = Jan–Jun, second-half = Jul–Dec. 2026-11 → second-half.

Contract gross pay 4159.75 differs from payroll gross4184.75 → conflict. Is there an amendment? Not in the documents. So under R7 item 4: CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY, cite R7 and R9.

Wait, but let me check the reference row too — for deduction cap? Actually the conflict check happens before calculation. The order: 1. missing gross, 2. missing month, 3. no reference row, 4. conflict. So I should check reference row exists for 2026-11. Let me lookup reference second-half to verify applicability... Actually R7 order says check no applicable reference (item 3) before conflict (item 4). But we cannot calculate anyway. Should I check lookup_reference? Month 2026-11 is within 2026, covered. The reference rows presumably cover months. Let me look up second-half to confirm coverage.

Also, the conflicting gross pay: no amendment document present. So clarify with CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY.

The reference row covers 2026-07 through 2026-12, so 2026-11 has an applicable row. However, there is a conflict: contract_gross_pay 4159.75 ≠ gross_pay 4184.75, and no approved amendment exists. Per R7 step 4: clarify, CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY, cite R7 and R9.

Let me list documents first.

Read both documents.

Payroll month 2026-11 → second-half? Wait, "first-half" and "second-half" refer to periods of the year presumably. 2026-11 is in second half (July–December). Let me look up reference rows.

Also conflict: contract gross 4159.75 vs payroll 4184.75. No amendment → CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY under R7 and R9. But wait, order of checks in R7: 1 missing gross, 2 missing month, 3 no reference row, 4 conflicting gross pay. Also I need to check reference row existence first. But the conflict check comes before calculation regardless. However, to follow order, I should check NO_APPLICABLE_REFERENCE first. Let me look up the reference.

Actually, if there is a conflict, decision is clarify regardless. But the order says check in this order. So I need to determine whether a reference row exists for 2026-11 to know which reason code takes precedence. Let me lookup.

Months coverage: first-half covers 2026-01 through 2026-06; second-half covers 2026-07 through 2026-12. So 2026-11 is covered by second-half row. So a reference row exists.

Now check conflict: gross_pay 4184.75 vs contract 4159.75 — differ. No amendment. → CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY, cite R7 and R9.

Order check: gross present, month present, reference exists, conflict → clarify.

Reason code: CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY, clauses R7, R9.

Let me start by listing documents.

Read both documents.

Payroll month 2026-11 → second-half? Wait, first-half = months 1-6, second-half =7-12. November is second half. Let me look up.

Contract gross pay 4159.75 differs from payroll gross4184.75. No amendment present. So CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY → clarify, cite R7 and R9.

But wait — the check order: gross_pay present, payroll_month present, reference row exists (check?), then conflict. Order says check 3 before 4. Should I verify the reference row exists? Month 2026-11 is within 2026. But does the second-half row cover November? Let me check lookup_reference to be sure. Actually the order matters: if NO_APPLICABLE_REFERENCE applies, that takes priority. Let me check.

Also allowed_deduction is present but we're clarifying anyway.

Second-half covers months 2026-07 through 2026-12 presumably (months field shows ["2026-07", "2026-12"] as boundaries). So 2026-11 is covered.

Check first-half too? Not needed since 2026-11 is in second half. But boundaries: "first-half" and "second-half" — months field lists start and end. Second-half covers 2026-07 to 2026-12. So 2026-11 is applicable.

Now the conflict: contract_gross_pay 4159.75 ≠ gross_pay 4184.75, no amendment. → clarify, CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY, cite R7 and R9.

Rules say: "For these cases do not return calculated monetary fields." So answer fields: decision, reason_code, clauses, explanation.