← Heatmap / MiMo V2.6 Pro · Task 70
MiMo V2.6 Pro · Tool use · Task 70 (Traps, conflicting pay (draft 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 · 17.3s · $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 start by listing documents.
Tool
[
{"id": "a2c640867c589a4e-payroll", "kind": "payroll"},
{"id": "a2c640867c589a4e-contract", "kind": "contract"},
{"id": "a2c640867c589a4e-amendment", "kind": "amendment"}
]
Assistant
read_document(document_id="a2c640867c589a4e-payroll")read_document(document_id="a2c640867c589a4e-contract")read_document(document_id="a2c640867c589a4e-amendment")Reasoning
Read all three.
Tool
{
"kind": "payroll",
"record": {"gross_pay": "3730.24", "payroll_month": "2026-11", "allowed_deduction": "269.21"}
}
Tool
{
"kind": "contract",
"gross_pay": "3731.24"
}
Tool
{
"kind": "amendment",
"gross_pay": "3730.24",
"effective_month": "2026-01",
"approved": false
}
Assistant
lookup_reference(reference="second-half")Reasoning
Contract gross pay 3731.24 differs from payroll gross3730.24 → conflict. Amendment: gross_pay 3730.24 equals payroll gross, effective_month 2026-01 ≤ 2026-11, but approved = false. So it does not resolve the conflict. → clarify, CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY, cite R7 and R9. Wait — but should I still do calculation? R7 item 4: return clarify. Do not return calculated monetary fields. But first, check order: gross_pay present, payroll_month present, reference row exists? 2026-11 is second-half of 2026, which exists. But the conflict check happens after. Actually the order: 1 missing gross, 2 missing month, 3 no reference, 4 conflict. Should I verify reference exists? Month 2026-11 — "Only 2026 is covered" and first-half/second-half rows exist. Let me check lookup_reference to be safe, but the conflict already triggers clarify regardless. Still, order says check 3 before 4. Let me lookup second-half to confirm a row exists.
Tool
{
"reference": "second-half",
"months": ["2026-07", "2026-12"],
"rate": "0.05",
"cap": "4000.00",
"deduction": "400.00",
"free": "1200.00",
"upper": "3000.00",
"middle_rate": "0.10",
"upper_rate": "0.20"
}
Assistant
{
"decision": "clarify",
"reason_code": "CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY",
"clauses": ["R7", "R9"],
"explanation": "The contract gross pay (3731.24) differs from the payroll gross pay (3730.24), and the amendment is not approved, so it cannot resolve the conflict. Please confirm the correct gross pay or provide an approved amendment matching the payroll record."
}
Reasoning
Second-half row covers 2026-07 through 2026-12, so 2026-11 is covered. Now the conflict: contract 3731.24 vs payroll 3730.24 differ. Amendment is approved=false (draft), so it does not resolve. Return clarify with CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY citing R7 and R9.
Rollout #2 100.0% passed · 5 tool calls · 14.8s · $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 first.
Tool
[
{"id": "a2c640867c589a4e-payroll", "kind": "payroll"},
{"id": "a2c640867c589a4e-contract", "kind": "contract"},
{"id": "a2c640867c589a4e-amendment", "kind": "amendment"}
]
Assistant
read_document(document_id="a2c640867c589a4e-payroll")read_document(document_id="a2c640867c589a4e-contract")read_document(document_id="a2c640867c589a4e-amendment")Reasoning
Read all three.
Tool
{
"kind": "payroll",
"record": {"gross_pay": "3730.24", "payroll_month": "2026-11", "allowed_deduction": "269.21"}
}
Tool
{
"kind": "contract",
"gross_pay": "3731.24"
}
Tool
{
"kind": "amendment",
"gross_pay": "3730.24",
"effective_month": "2026-01",
"approved": false
}
Assistant
lookup_reference(reference="second-half")Reasoning
Conflict: contract 3731.24 vs gross_pay 3730.24. Amendment: gross 3730.24, effective 2026-01 ≤ 2026-11, but approved = false. So amendment does not resolve → CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY, cite R7 and R9. Wait, but R7 order: gross_pay present, month present, reference row... month 2026-11 must be checked. Actually check order: 1 missing gross, 2 missing month, 3 no reference row, 4 conflict. But we need lookup_reference to verify a row exists for 2026-11. Let me check second-half reference.
Tool
{
"reference": "second-half",
"months": ["2026-07", "2026-12"],
"rate": "0.05",
"cap": "4000.00",
"deduction": "400.00",
"free": "1200.00",
"upper": "3000.00",
"middle_rate": "0.10",
"upper_rate": "0.20"
}
Assistant
{
"decision": "clarify",
"reason_code": "CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY",
"clauses": ["R7", "R9"],
"explanation": "The contract gross pay 3731.24 differs from the payroll gross pay 3730.24, and the only amendment is unapproved (approved=false) so it cannot resolve the conflict. Please provide an approved amendment matching the payroll gross pay and effective no later than 2026-11, or confirm the correct gross pay."
}
Reasoning
Second-half row covers 2026-07 through 2026-12, which includes 2026-11. So a reference row exists. Now the conflict check: contract_gross_pay 3731.24 ≠ gross_pay 3730.24. Amendment not approved → does not resolve. Return clarify with CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY, clauses R7 and R9. No monetary fields. Explanation naming blocker.
Rollout #3 100.0% passed · 5 tool calls · 17.3s · $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 first.
Tool
[
{"id": "a2c640867c589a4e-payroll", "kind": "payroll"},
{"id": "a2c640867c589a4e-contract", "kind": "contract"},
{"id": "a2c640867c589a4e-amendment", "kind": "amendment"}
]
Assistant
read_document(document_id="a2c640867c589a4e-payroll")read_document(document_id="a2c640867c589a4e-contract")read_document(document_id="a2c640867c589a4e-amendment")Reasoning
Read all three documents.
Tool
{
"kind": "payroll",
"record": {"gross_pay": "3730.24", "payroll_month": "2026-11", "allowed_deduction": "269.21"}
}
Tool
{
"kind": "contract",
"gross_pay": "3731.24"
}
Tool
{
"kind": "amendment",
"gross_pay": "3730.24",
"effective_month": "2026-01",
"approved": false
}
Assistant
lookup_reference(reference="second-half")Reasoning
Contract gross pay 3731.24 differs from payroll gross3730.24 → conflict. Amendment is not approved (approved: false), so it doesn't resolve the conflict. Per R7 step 4: return clarify with CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY, citing R7 and R9. Order of checks: gross_pay present, payroll_month present. Next: "A month without a reference row" — 2026-11 is within 2026, but only two reference rows: first-half and second-half. Which covers 2026-11? Presumably second-half covers July–December. Let me check lookup_reference to confirm coverage. Actually the check order: #3 no applicable reference before #4 conflicting gross pay. Should I check reference first? To be safe, lookup second-half to verify it covers 2026-11. If it does, proceed to conflict check → CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY. Let me do lookup_reference anyway to confirm.
Tool
{
"reference": "second-half",
"months": ["2026-07", "2026-12"],
"rate": "0.05",
"cap": "4000.00",
"deduction": "400.00",
"free": "1200.00",
"upper": "3000.00",
"middle_rate": "0.10",
"upper_rate": "0.20"
}
Assistant
{
"decision": "clarify",
"reason_code": "CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY",
"clauses": ["R7", "R9"],
"explanation": "The contract gross pay (3731.24) differs from the payroll gross pay (3730.24), and the amendment is not approved so it cannot resolve the conflict. Please confirm the correct gross pay or provide an approved amendment matching the payroll record."
}
Reasoning
Second-half covers 2026-07 to 2026-12, so 2026-11 has a reference row. Now the conflict: contract_gross_pay 3731.24 ≠ gross_pay 3730.24. Amendment is not approved (draft), so it doesn't resolve. Return clarify CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY citing R7 and R9.