Let me start by listing documents.

Read all three documents.

Payroll gross_pay: 5990.05. Contract gross_pay: 5990.06. They differ (5990.05 vs 5990.06). Amendment: gross_pay 5995.06, effective_month 2026-07, approved true. Does the amendment resolve the conflict? Per R9: It resolves a contract conflict only if it is approved (yes), effective month is no later than payroll month (2026-07 <= 2026-07, yes), AND its amount equals the payroll record's gross pay (5995.06 vs 5990.05 — NOT equal). So it does NOT resolve the conflict. Therefore, return clarify with CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY, citing R7 and R9.

Check order: gross_pay present, payroll_month present, reference row exists for 2026-07 (second-half). But conflict check is #4. Should I still lookup reference? Not needed for the answer since we clarify on conflict. But order says check in this order; the conflict is item 4. Reference row check is item 3 — 2026-07 is covered presumably. Let me verify second-half reference exists just to be thorough? Not strictly needed but fine. The answer is clarify due to conflicting gross pay.

Clauses: R7 and R9. Explanation: unresolved blocker — contract gross pay differs from payroll gross pay and the approved amendment amount doesn't match the payroll gross pay, so it cannot resolve.

Reference row exists for 2026-07. Conflict check: contract5990.06 ≠ payroll 5990.05. Amendment amount 5995.06 ≠ payroll 5990.05, so it does not resolve. Clarify: CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY.

Let me start by listing documents.

Read all three documents.

Contract gross pay is 5990.06, payroll gross pay is 5990.05. They differ. Amendment is approved, effective_month 2026-07 (no later than payroll month), but its amount is 5995.06, which does not equal the payroll record's gross pay (5990.05). So the amendment does not resolve the conflict. Per R7 item 4: return clarify with CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY, citing R7 and R9.

Wait — but check order: gross_pay present, payroll_month present. Month 2026-07 has a reference row (second-half presumably). But the conflict check comes at step 4. Actually order: 1 missing gross, 2 missing month, 3 no reference row, 4 conflict. Do we need to check reference row first? The order says check in this order. Month 2026-07 is within 2026; presumably second-half has a row. But conflict is step 4. Should we verify step 3 first? We could lookup to confirm reference exists, but the conflict triggers regardless... actually if no reference row existed, that would trigger first (step 3 before step 4). Let me quickly check the reference to be thorough? The rules say check in order. To be safe, lookup second-half to confirm a row exists. But even so, the conflict would be the outcome... unless no reference existed. Let me just lookup to be safe.

Actually, order of checks: step 3 before step 4. So if the month had no reference, we'd return NO_APPLICABLE_REFERENCE. Let me check.

Reference row exists for 2026-07. Contract gross pay 5990.06 differs from payroll gross pay 5990.05. Amendment approved, effective 2026-07 (no later than payroll month), but amount 5995.06 ≠ 5990.05 (payroll gross). So the amendment does not resolve the conflict → clarify, CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY, cite R7 and R9.

Return JSON with decision, reason_code, clauses, explanation. No monetary fields.

Let me list documents first.

Let me read all three documents and look up reference rows.

Gross pay 5990.05 vs contract 5990.06 → conflict. Amendment: approved, effective 2026-07 (no later than payroll month), but amount 5995.06 ≠5990.05 (payroll record gross pay). So amendment does NOT resolve the conflict. → clarify with CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY, citing R7 and R9.

Wait — order of checks: R7 check 4. Yes, contract_gross_pay differs from gross_pay, amendment doesn't resolve → CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY.

But should I check reference row first? Order: 1 missing gross, 2 missing month, 3 no reference, 4 conflict. Month is 2026-07 which is covered (second-half). So no NO_APPLICABLE_REFERENCE. Conflict applies.

Do I need lookup_reference? For conflict clarification, no monetary fields returned. But check order requires confirming a reference row exists first. 2026-07 is within 2026, second-half row. I could verify lookup_reference("second-half") to be safe. Let me do it.

Reference exists for 2026-07. Conflict check: contract 5990.06 ≠ gross 5990.05. Amendment: approved, effective 2026-07 (equal to payroll month, so "no later than"), but amount 5995.06 ≠ 5990.05 → does not resolve. So clarify CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY, clauses R7 and R9.