Let me start by listing documents.

Read all three documents.

Payroll: gross_pay 3418.55, month 2026-10, allowed_deduction 361.73.
Contract: 3518.55 → differs from gross_pay 3418.55 → conflict.
Amendment: gross_pay 3418.55, effective_month 2026-10, approved: false → draft, does not resolve conflict.

Per R7 #4: unresolved conflict → clarify with CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY, citing R7 and R9.

Wait, but let me double-check R7 order: gross_pay present, payroll_month present, reference row for 2026-10 exists (second-half presumably covers Jul-Dec). Conflict check applies. The amendment is not approved, so it does not resolve. Return clarify.

But hold on — some might think the conflict check only happens if contract differs. Contract 3518.55 ≠ 3418.55, so conflict. Amendment not approved → doesn't resolve. So clarify.

I should still maybe check reference? Not needed, but month 2026-10 has reference (second-half). The answer: decision clarify, reason_code CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY, clauses ["R7","R9"].

No monetary fields. Include explanation naming the blocker.

Let me list documents first.

Let me read all three documents.

Gross pay 3418.55 vs contract 3518.55 — conflict. Amendment: approved false, so does not resolve. So CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY, cite R7 and R9.

Wait, but should I check order? R7 order: missing gross, missing month, no reference, conflicting. Gross and month present. Reference row for 2026-10 exists (second-half). Then conflict check: contract differs, amendment not approved → clarify CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY.

I don't need reference lookup. But rules say before calculation check order; reference exists. It's fine without lookup. Maybe I could lookup to confirm but not necessary. Return clarify.

Payroll month 2026-10 covered by second-half row (2026-07 to 2026-12). Reference exists. Contract3518.55 ≠ gross 3418.55. Amendment not approved → does not resolve. Clarify CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY, cite R7 and R9. No monetary fields.

Let me list documents first.

Read all three documents.

Conflicting gross pay: payroll 3418.55 vs contract 3518.55. Amendment exists but is not approved (approved: false), so it does not resolve the conflict. Return clarify with CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY, citing R7 and R9.

Order of checks: gross_pay present, payroll_month present, reference row... Check 4 is conflicting gross pay. Actually check 3 is "month without a reference row" — should I check the reference first? Order says check in this order: 1 missing gross, 2 missing month, 3 no applicable reference, 4 conflicting gross. Since 2026-10 is covered by second-half presumably. But to be strictly correct, the order of checking: I should verify the reference row exists first? The clarification order lists conflicting check as4th. But since checks 1-3 don't trigger... wait, does 2026-10 have a reference row? "Only 2026 is covered" — first-half and second-half. 2026-10 is in second-half. So a row exists. Then check 4 triggers: contract differs from gross pay, amendment not approved → CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY.

I don't need lookup_reference for a clarification, but the order requires checking reference applicability.2026-10 is within 2026, second-half. It's fine. But to be safe, maybe lookup the second-half reference to confirm. It doesn't hurt. Actually the amendment is not approved, so conflict unresolved regardless. But if there were no reference row, the answer would be NO_APPLICABLE_REFERENCE (order 3 before 4). Let me check the reference to be safe.

2026-10 falls within second-half (2026-07 through 2026-12). Reference exists. Check 4: contract_gross_pay 3518.55 differs from gross_pay 3418.55. Amendment: approved false → does not resolve. Return clarify, CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY, clauses R7 and R9.