← Heatmap / MiMo V2.6 Pro · Task 108
MiMo V2.6 Pro · Tool use · Task 108 (Traps, conflicting pay)
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 · 3 tool calls · 11.8s · $0.0005
| 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": "fe795276753ae001-payroll", "kind": "payroll"},
{"id": "fe795276753ae001-contract", "kind": "contract"}
]
Assistant
read_document(document_id="fe795276753ae001-payroll")read_document(document_id="fe795276753ae001-contract")Reasoning
Read both documents.
Tool
{
"kind": "payroll",
"record": {"gross_pay": "5759.84", "payroll_month": "2026-04", "allowed_deduction": "67.09"}
}
Tool
{
"kind": "contract",
"gross_pay": "5759.85"
}
Assistant
{
"decision": "clarify",
"reason_code": "CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY",
"clauses": ["R7", "R9"],
"explanation": "Payroll gross_pay 5759.84 differs from contract_gross_pay 5759.85 and no approved amendment resolves the conflict. Please confirm the correct gross pay or supply an approved amendment."
}
Reasoning
Payroll month 2026-04 → first-half (or which half?). April is in first half presumably (Jan–Jun). Contract gross pay: 5759.85 vs payroll gross_pay 5759.84 → conflict. No amendment in documents. So clarify with CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY, citing R7 and R9. Wait — check for amendment. Only two documents. No amendment. Conflict: 5759.84 vs 5759.85 differ. Return clarify. Clauses: R7 and R9. Explanation: unresolved conflict between payroll gross pay and contract gross pay; request approved amendment or correction.
Rollout #2 100.0% passed · 4 tool calls · 15.4s · $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": "fe795276753ae001-payroll", "kind": "payroll"},
{"id": "fe795276753ae001-contract", "kind": "contract"}
]
Assistant
read_document(document_id="fe795276753ae001-payroll")read_document(document_id="fe795276753ae001-contract")Reasoning
Read both documents.
Tool
{
"kind": "payroll",
"record": {"gross_pay": "5759.84", "payroll_month": "2026-04", "allowed_deduction": "67.09"}
}
Tool
{
"kind": "contract",
"gross_pay": "5759.85"
}
Assistant
lookup_reference(reference="first-half")Reasoning
Payroll record: gross_pay 5759.84, payroll_month 2026-04, allowed_deduction 67.09. Contract gross_pay: 5759.85, which differs from payroll gross_pay 5759.84. No amendment present. So under R7 item 4, conflicting gross pay → clarify CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY, citing R7 and R9. But wait — should I look up the reference first? The conflict check order: 1 missing gross, 2 missing month, 3 no reference row, 4 conflict. Month 2026-04 is covered by second-half? No — first-half is presumably Jan-Jun. Let me check lookup_reference to confirm a row exists (step 3 before step 4). Actually order matters: I must check reference existence before conflict. Let me look up first-half for April. Actually2026-04 falls in the first half. Let me confirm.
Tool
{
"reference": "first-half",
"months": ["2026-01", "2026-06"],
"rate": "0.05",
"cap": "5000.00",
"deduction": "400.00",
"free": "1100.00",
"upper": "3300.00",
"middle_rate": "0.12",
"upper_rate": "0.20"
}
Assistant
{
"decision": "clarify",
"reason_code": "CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY",
"clauses": ["R7", "R9"],
"explanation": "The payroll record gross_pay 5759.84 and the contract gross_pay 5759.85 differ, and no approved amendment resolving the conflict is present. Please provide a matching value or an approved amendment effective no later than 2026-04."
}
Reasoning
Wait, months field says ["2026-01", "2026-06"] — that presumably means the range from 2026-01 to 2026-06 (start and end). So 2026-04 is covered. So a reference row exists. Now step 4: contract gross_pay 5759.85 differs from payroll gross_pay 5759.84. No amendment. Conflict → clarify, reason_code CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY, clauses R7 and R9. Return JSON with decision, reason_code, clauses, and short explanation.
Rollout #3 100.0% passed · 4 tool calls · 14.8s · $0.0009
| 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": "fe795276753ae001-payroll", "kind": "payroll"},
{"id": "fe795276753ae001-contract", "kind": "contract"}
]
Assistant
read_document(document_id="fe795276753ae001-payroll")read_document(document_id="fe795276753ae001-contract")Reasoning
Read both documents.
Tool
{
"kind": "payroll",
"record": {"gross_pay": "5759.84", "payroll_month": "2026-04", "allowed_deduction": "67.09"}
}
Tool
{
"kind": "contract",
"gross_pay": "5759.85"
}
Assistant
lookup_reference(reference="first-half")Reasoning
Payroll gross_pay: 5759.84, contract_gross_pay: 5759.85. They differ. No amendment supplied. So per R7 item 4: conflicting gross pay → clarify, CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY, citing R7 and R9. But wait — order of checks: gross_pay present, payroll_month present, reference row exists (2026-04 is in 2026, first-half row). The conflict check is #4. So we return clarify with CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY. Hmm, but should I check the reference row first? The month 2026-04 is within first-half, presumably covered. Let me verify lookup_reference to make sure a row exists (it should). Actually the rule says check in this order.2026 is covered by both rows presumably. But to be safe, let me lookup the first-half row. Actually, is it needed? The check #3 says "A month without a reference row". The reference rows cover first-half and second-half of 2026 presumably. Let me quickly look up to confirm.
Tool
{
"reference": "first-half",
"months": ["2026-01", "2026-06"],
"rate": "0.05",
"cap": "5000.00",
"deduction": "400.00",
"free": "1100.00",
"upper": "3300.00",
"middle_rate": "0.12",
"upper_rate": "0.20"
}
Assistant
{
"decision": "clarify",
"reason_code": "CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY",
"clauses": ["R7", "R9"],
"explanation": "The payroll record gross pay 5759.84 differs from the contract gross pay 5759.85, and no approved amendment resolves the discrepancy. Please confirm the correct gross pay amount or supply an approved amendment."
}
Reasoning
A reference row covers 2026-04 (first-half, months 2026-01 to 2026-06). Gross pay present. Contract gross pay 5759.85 differs from payroll gross pay 5759.84. No amendment exists in the case. So conflict → clarify CONFLICTING_GROSS_PAY, citing R7 and R9.