Prompt:
Instruction:
You are a careful information extraction system.
Return only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.
Preserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.
Prefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.

JSON schema:
{
  "document_type": "string",
  "entities": [
    {
      "name": "string",
      "role": "string",
      "evidence": "string"
    }
  ],
  "dates": [
    {
      "date": "YYYY-MM-DD or string",
      "meaning": "string",
      "evidence": "string"
    }
  ],
  "obligations": [
    {
      "party": "string",
      "action": "string",
      "deadline": "string|null",
      "evidence": "string"
    }
  ],
  "amounts": [
    {
      "value": "string",
      "currency": "string|null",
      "context": "string",
      "evidence": "string"
    }
  ],
  "risks": [
    {
      "risk": "string",
      "severity": "low|medium|high",
      "evidence": "string"
    }
  ],
  "confidence": "number"
}

Few-shot examples:
Example 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.
Example 1 output: {"document_type":"service agreement","entities":[{"name":"Vendor","role":"service provider","evidence":"Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports"}],"dates":[{"date":"ten business days after quarter end","meaning":"report deadline","evidence":"within ten business days after quarter end"}],"obligations":[{"party":"Vendor","action":"provide quarterly uptime reports","deadline":"ten business days after quarter end","evidence":"Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end"}],"amounts":[],"risks":[{"risk":"termination after repeated uncured breaches","severity":"medium","evidence":"Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches"}],"confidence":0.92}
Example 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.
Example 2 output: {"document_type":"medical policy","entities":[{"name":"clinical review committee","role":"approver","evidence":"approved by the clinical review committee"}],"dates":[{"date":"before treatment begins","meaning":"approval timing","evidence":"unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins"}],"obligations":[],"amounts":[],"risks":[{"risk":"experimental therapy excluded without prior approval","severity":"high","evidence":"policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved"}],"confidence":0.9}
Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable evidence threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of review, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects monitoring, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision.

Additional extraction policy:
A reviewer should flag inconsistent vendor language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable encryption threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 7.2 states that the operations lead must review access evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable access threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of attestation, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects classification, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 17.6 states that the compliance officer must review approval evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent approval language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 5.8 states that the contract manager must review exception evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable audit threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent exception language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent approval language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable encryption threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent access language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects attestation, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of encryption, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of incident, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects monitoring, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects risk, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects review, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects approval, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent audit.

Document:
The review committee may rely on obligation data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable assignment threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of agreement, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The compliance officer may rely on warranty data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of exhibit, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable notice threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 14.1 states that the contract manager must review liability evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent agreement language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of liability, historical performance, and.

Task: Extract termination clauses.


Prompt:
Instruction:
You are a careful information extraction system.
Return only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.
Preserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.
Prefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.

JSON schema:
{
  "document_type": "string",
  "entities": [
    {
      "name": "string",
      "role": "string",
      "evidence": "string"
    }
  ],
  "dates": [
    {
      "date": "YYYY-MM-DD or string",
      "meaning": "string",
      "evidence": "string"
    }
  ],
  "obligations": [
    {
      "party": "string",
      "action": "string",
      "deadline": "string|null",
      "evidence": "string"
    }
  ],
  "amounts": [
    {
      "value": "string",
      "currency": "string|null",
      "context": "string",
      "evidence": "string"
    }
  ],
  "risks": [
    {
      "risk": "string",
      "severity": "low|medium|high",
      "evidence": "string"
    }
  ],
  "confidence": "number"
}

Few-shot examples:
Example 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.
Example 1 output: {"document_type":"service agreement","entities":[{"name":"Vendor","role":"service provider","evidence":"Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports"}],"dates":[{"date":"ten business days after quarter end","meaning":"report deadline","evidence":"within ten business days after quarter end"}],"obligations":[{"party":"Vendor","action":"provide quarterly uptime reports","deadline":"ten business days after quarter end","evidence":"Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end"}],"amounts":[],"risks":[{"risk":"termination after repeated uncured breaches","severity":"medium","evidence":"Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches"}],"confidence":0.92}
Example 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.
Example 2 output: {"document_type":"medical policy","entities":[{"name":"clinical review committee","role":"approver","evidence":"approved by the clinical review committee"}],"dates":[{"date":"before treatment begins","meaning":"approval timing","evidence":"unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins"}],"obligations":[],"amounts":[],"risks":[{"risk":"experimental therapy excluded without prior approval","severity":"high","evidence":"policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved"}],"confidence":0.9}
Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable evidence threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of review, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects monitoring, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision.

Additional extraction policy:
A reviewer should flag inconsistent vendor language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable encryption threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 7.2 states that the operations lead must review access evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable access threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of attestation, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects classification, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 17.6 states that the compliance officer must review approval evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent approval language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 5.8 states that the contract manager must review exception evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable audit threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent exception language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent approval language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable encryption threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent access language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects attestation, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of encryption, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of incident, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects monitoring, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects risk, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects review, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects approval, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent audit.

Document:
A reviewer should flag inconsistent authorization language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The service owner may rely on network data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 3.4 states that the contract manager must review claims evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent therapy language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable claims threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable exclusion threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable network threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 16.7 states that the service owner must review dosage evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business.

Task: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.

All rows share the same extraction instruction, JSON schema, and few-shot prefix; only the short document and query change.


Prompt:
Instruction:
You are a careful information extraction system.
Return only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.
Preserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.
Prefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.

JSON schema:
{
  "document_type": "string",
  "entities": [
    {
      "name": "string",
      "role": "string",
      "evidence": "string"
    }
  ],
  "dates": [
    {
      "date": "YYYY-MM-DD or string",
      "meaning": "string",
      "evidence": "string"
    }
  ],
  "obligations": [
    {
      "party": "string",
      "action": "string",
      "deadline": "string|null",
      "evidence": "string"
    }
  ],
  "amounts": [
    {
      "value": "string",
      "currency": "string|null",
      "context": "string",
      "evidence": "string"
    }
  ],
  "risks": [
    {
      "risk": "string",
      "severity": "low|medium|high",
      "evidence": "string"
    }
  ],
  "confidence": "number"
}

Few-shot examples:
Example 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.
Example 1 output: {"document_type":"service agreement","entities":[{"name":"Vendor","role":"service provider","evidence":"Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports"}],"dates":[{"date":"ten business days after quarter end","meaning":"report deadline","evidence":"within ten business days after quarter end"}],"obligations":[{"party":"Vendor","action":"provide quarterly uptime reports","deadline":"ten business days after quarter end","evidence":"Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end"}],"amounts":[],"risks":[{"risk":"termination after repeated uncured breaches","severity":"medium","evidence":"Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches"}],"confidence":0.92}
Example 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.
Example 2 output: {"document_type":"medical policy","entities":[{"name":"clinical review committee","role":"approver","evidence":"approved by the clinical review committee"}],"dates":[{"date":"before treatment begins","meaning":"approval timing","evidence":"unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins"}],"obligations":[],"amounts":[],"risks":[{"risk":"experimental therapy excluded without prior approval","severity":"high","evidence":"policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved"}],"confidence":0.9}
Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable evidence threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of review, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects monitoring, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision.

Additional extraction policy:
A reviewer should flag inconsistent vendor language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable encryption threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 7.2 states that the operations lead must review access evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable access threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of attestation, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects classification, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 17.6 states that the compliance officer must review approval evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent approval language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 5.8 states that the contract manager must review exception evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable audit threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent exception language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent approval language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable encryption threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent access language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects attestation, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of encryption, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of incident, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects monitoring, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects risk, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects review, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects approval, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent audit.

Document:
Section 4.7 states that the service owner must review liquidity evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable revenue threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent liability language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The operations lead may rely on liquidity data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable liability threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent liquidity language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable cashflow threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent impairment language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The administrator may rely on impairment data when the source is validated,.

Task: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.


Prompt:
Instruction:
You are a careful information extraction system.
Return only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.
Preserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.
Prefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.

JSON schema:
{
  "document_type": "string",
  "entities": [
    {
      "name": "string",
      "role": "string",
      "evidence": "string"
    }
  ],
  "dates": [
    {
      "date": "YYYY-MM-DD or string",
      "meaning": "string",
      "evidence": "string"
    }
  ],
  "obligations": [
    {
      "party": "string",
      "action": "string",
      "deadline": "string|null",
      "evidence": "string"
    }
  ],
  "amounts": [
    {
      "value": "string",
      "currency": "string|null",
      "context": "string",
      "evidence": "string"
    }
  ],
  "risks": [
    {
      "risk": "string",
      "severity": "low|medium|high",
      "evidence": "string"
    }
  ],
  "confidence": "number"
}

Few-shot examples:
Example 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.
Example 1 output: {"document_type":"service agreement","entities":[{"name":"Vendor","role":"service provider","evidence":"Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports"}],"dates":[{"date":"ten business days after quarter end","meaning":"report deadline","evidence":"within ten business days after quarter end"}],"obligations":[{"party":"Vendor","action":"provide quarterly uptime reports","deadline":"ten business days after quarter end","evidence":"Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end"}],"amounts":[],"risks":[{"risk":"termination after repeated uncured breaches","severity":"medium","evidence":"Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches"}],"confidence":0.92}
Example 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.
Example 2 output: {"document_type":"medical policy","entities":[{"name":"clinical review committee","role":"approver","evidence":"approved by the clinical review committee"}],"dates":[{"date":"before treatment begins","meaning":"approval timing","evidence":"unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins"}],"obligations":[],"amounts":[],"risks":[{"risk":"experimental therapy excluded without prior approval","severity":"high","evidence":"policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved"}],"confidence":0.9}
Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable evidence threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of review, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects monitoring, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision.

Additional extraction policy:
A reviewer should flag inconsistent vendor language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable encryption threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 7.2 states that the operations lead must review access evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable access threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of attestation, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects classification, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 17.6 states that the compliance officer must review approval evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent approval language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 5.8 states that the contract manager must review exception evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable audit threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent exception language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent approval language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable encryption threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent access language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects attestation, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of encryption, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of incident, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects monitoring, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects risk, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects review, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects approval, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent audit.

Document:
Section 12.5 states that the service owner must review configuration evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of endpoint, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent migration language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent timeout language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects runtime, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The operations lead may rely on latency data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 5.4 states that the compliance officer must review schema evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. The service owner may rely on permission data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The administrator may rely.

Task: Extract risks that require manual review.


Prompt:
Instruction:
You are a careful information extraction system.
Return only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.
Preserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.
Prefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.

JSON schema:
{
  "document_type": "string",
  "entities": [
    {
      "name": "string",
      "role": "string",
      "evidence": "string"
    }
  ],
  "dates": [
    {
      "date": "YYYY-MM-DD or string",
      "meaning": "string",
      "evidence": "string"
    }
  ],
  "obligations": [
    {
      "party": "string",
      "action": "string",
      "deadline": "string|null",
      "evidence": "string"
    }
  ],
  "amounts": [
    {
      "value": "string",
      "currency": "string|null",
      "context": "string",
      "evidence": "string"
    }
  ],
  "risks": [
    {
      "risk": "string",
      "severity": "low|medium|high",
      "evidence": "string"
    }
  ],
  "confidence": "number"
}

Few-shot examples:
Example 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.
Example 1 output: {"document_type":"service agreement","entities":[{"name":"Vendor","role":"service provider","evidence":"Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports"}],"dates":[{"date":"ten business days after quarter end","meaning":"report deadline","evidence":"within ten business days after quarter end"}],"obligations":[{"party":"Vendor","action":"provide quarterly uptime reports","deadline":"ten business days after quarter end","evidence":"Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end"}],"amounts":[],"risks":[{"risk":"termination after repeated uncured breaches","severity":"medium","evidence":"Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches"}],"confidence":0.92}
Example 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.
Example 2 output: {"document_type":"medical policy","entities":[{"name":"clinical review committee","role":"approver","evidence":"approved by the clinical review committee"}],"dates":[{"date":"before treatment begins","meaning":"approval timing","evidence":"unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins"}],"obligations":[],"amounts":[],"risks":[{"risk":"experimental therapy excluded without prior approval","severity":"high","evidence":"policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved"}],"confidence":0.9}
Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable evidence threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of review, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects monitoring, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision.

Additional extraction policy:
A reviewer should flag inconsistent vendor language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable encryption threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 7.2 states that the operations lead must review access evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable access threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of attestation, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects classification, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 17.6 states that the compliance officer must review approval evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent approval language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 5.8 states that the contract manager must review exception evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable audit threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent exception language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent approval language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable encryption threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent access language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects attestation, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of encryption, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of incident, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects monitoring, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects risk, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects review, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects approval, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent audit.

Document:
The procedure requires a comparison of vendor, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent control language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent classification language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The administrator may rely on encryption data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable control threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable exception threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 1.1 states that the service owner must review monitoring evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects vendor, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable attestation threshold,.

Task: Extract all obligations.


Prompt:
Instruction:
You are a careful information extraction system.
Return only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.
Preserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.
Prefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.

JSON schema:
{
  "document_type": "string",
  "entities": [
    {
      "name": "string",
      "role": "string",
      "evidence": "string"
    }
  ],
  "dates": [
    {
      "date": "YYYY-MM-DD or string",
      "meaning": "string",
      "evidence": "string"
    }
  ],
  "obligations": [
    {
      "party": "string",
      "action": "string",
      "deadline": "string|null",
      "evidence": "string"
    }
  ],
  "amounts": [
    {
      "value": "string",
      "currency": "string|null",
      "context": "string",
      "evidence": "string"
    }
  ],
  "risks": [
    {
      "risk": "string",
      "severity": "low|medium|high",
      "evidence": "string"
    }
  ],
  "confidence": "number"
}

Few-shot examples:
Example 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.
Example 1 output: {"document_type":"service agreement","entities":[{"name":"Vendor","role":"service provider","evidence":"Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports"}],"dates":[{"date":"ten business days after quarter end","meaning":"report deadline","evidence":"within ten business days after quarter end"}],"obligations":[{"party":"Vendor","action":"provide quarterly uptime reports","deadline":"ten business days after quarter end","evidence":"Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end"}],"amounts":[],"risks":[{"risk":"termination after repeated uncured breaches","severity":"medium","evidence":"Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches"}],"confidence":0.92}
Example 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.
Example 2 output: {"document_type":"medical policy","entities":[{"name":"clinical review committee","role":"approver","evidence":"approved by the clinical review committee"}],"dates":[{"date":"before treatment begins","meaning":"approval timing","evidence":"unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins"}],"obligations":[],"amounts":[],"risks":[{"risk":"experimental therapy excluded without prior approval","severity":"high","evidence":"policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved"}],"confidence":0.9}
Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable evidence threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of review, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects monitoring, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision.

Additional extraction policy:
A reviewer should flag inconsistent vendor language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable encryption threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 7.2 states that the operations lead must review access evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable access threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of attestation, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects classification, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 17.6 states that the compliance officer must review approval evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent approval language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 5.8 states that the contract manager must review exception evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable audit threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent exception language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent approval language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable encryption threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent access language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects attestation, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of encryption, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of incident, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects monitoring, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects risk, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects review, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects approval, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent audit.

Document:
The administrator may rely on dataset data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent finding language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The operations lead may rely on experiment data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of observation, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The contract manager may rely on observation data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 11.4 states that the review committee must review cohort evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects metric, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 5.9 states that the review committee must review cohort evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record..

Task: Extract all dates and deadlines.


Prompt:
Instruction:
You are a careful information extraction system.
Return only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.
Preserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.
Prefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.

JSON schema:
{
  "document_type": "string",
  "entities": [
    {
      "name": "string",
      "role": "string",
      "evidence": "string"
    }
  ],
  "dates": [
    {
      "date": "YYYY-MM-DD or string",
      "meaning": "string",
      "evidence": "string"
    }
  ],
  "obligations": [
    {
      "party": "string",
      "action": "string",
      "deadline": "string|null",
      "evidence": "string"
    }
  ],
  "amounts": [
    {
      "value": "string",
      "currency": "string|null",
      "context": "string",
      "evidence": "string"
    }
  ],
  "risks": [
    {
      "risk": "string",
      "severity": "low|medium|high",
      "evidence": "string"
    }
  ],
  "confidence": "number"
}

Few-shot examples:
Example 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.
Example 1 output: {"document_type":"service agreement","entities":[{"name":"Vendor","role":"service provider","evidence":"Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports"}],"dates":[{"date":"ten business days after quarter end","meaning":"report deadline","evidence":"within ten business days after quarter end"}],"obligations":[{"party":"Vendor","action":"provide quarterly uptime reports","deadline":"ten business days after quarter end","evidence":"Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end"}],"amounts":[],"risks":[{"risk":"termination after repeated uncured breaches","severity":"medium","evidence":"Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches"}],"confidence":0.92}
Example 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.
Example 2 output: {"document_type":"medical policy","entities":[{"name":"clinical review committee","role":"approver","evidence":"approved by the clinical review committee"}],"dates":[{"date":"before treatment begins","meaning":"approval timing","evidence":"unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins"}],"obligations":[],"amounts":[],"risks":[{"risk":"experimental therapy excluded without prior approval","severity":"high","evidence":"policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved"}],"confidence":0.9}
Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable evidence threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of review, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects monitoring, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision.

Additional extraction policy:
A reviewer should flag inconsistent vendor language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable encryption threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 7.2 states that the operations lead must review access evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable access threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of attestation, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects classification, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 17.6 states that the compliance officer must review approval evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent approval language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 5.8 states that the contract manager must review exception evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable audit threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent exception language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent approval language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable encryption threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent access language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects attestation, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of encryption, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of incident, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects monitoring, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects risk, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects review, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects approval, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent audit.

Document:
A reviewer should flag inconsistent liability language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 4.6 states that the review committee must review exhibit evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects indemnity, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 5.5 states that the operations lead must review remedy evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of notice, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The compliance officer may rely on obligation data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The review committee may rely on exhibit data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable remedy threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify.

Task: Extract all entities.


Prompt:
Instruction:
You are a careful information extraction system.
Return only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.
Preserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.
Prefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.

JSON schema:
{
  "document_type": "string",
  "entities": [
    {
      "name": "string",
      "role": "string",
      "evidence": "string"
    }
  ],
  "dates": [
    {
      "date": "YYYY-MM-DD or string",
      "meaning": "string",
      "evidence": "string"
    }
  ],
  "obligations": [
    {
      "party": "string",
      "action": "string",
      "deadline": "string|null",
      "evidence": "string"
    }
  ],
  "amounts": [
    {
      "value": "string",
      "currency": "string|null",
      "context": "string",
      "evidence": "string"
    }
  ],
  "risks": [
    {
      "risk": "string",
      "severity": "low|medium|high",
      "evidence": "string"
    }
  ],
  "confidence": "number"
}

Few-shot examples:
Example 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.
Example 1 output: {"document_type":"service agreement","entities":[{"name":"Vendor","role":"service provider","evidence":"Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports"}],"dates":[{"date":"ten business days after quarter end","meaning":"report deadline","evidence":"within ten business days after quarter end"}],"obligations":[{"party":"Vendor","action":"provide quarterly uptime reports","deadline":"ten business days after quarter end","evidence":"Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end"}],"amounts":[],"risks":[{"risk":"termination after repeated uncured breaches","severity":"medium","evidence":"Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches"}],"confidence":0.92}
Example 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.
Example 2 output: {"document_type":"medical policy","entities":[{"name":"clinical review committee","role":"approver","evidence":"approved by the clinical review committee"}],"dates":[{"date":"before treatment begins","meaning":"approval timing","evidence":"unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins"}],"obligations":[],"amounts":[],"risks":[{"risk":"experimental therapy excluded without prior approval","severity":"high","evidence":"policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved"}],"confidence":0.9}
Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable evidence threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of review, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects monitoring, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision.

Additional extraction policy:
A reviewer should flag inconsistent vendor language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable encryption threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 7.2 states that the operations lead must review access evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable access threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of attestation, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects classification, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 17.6 states that the compliance officer must review approval evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent approval language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 5.8 states that the contract manager must review exception evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable audit threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent exception language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent approval language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable encryption threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent access language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects attestation, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of encryption, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of incident, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects monitoring, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects risk, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects review, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects approval, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent audit.

Document:
Section 8.9 states that the compliance officer must review protocol evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. The service owner may rely on referral data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects claims, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent referral language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects authorization, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 6.9 states that the review committee must review authorization evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent member language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of benefit, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected.

Task: Extract all monetary amounts.


Prompt:
Instruction:
You are a careful information extraction system.
Return only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.
Preserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.
Prefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.

JSON schema:
{
  "document_type": "string",
  "entities": [
    {
      "name": "string",
      "role": "string",
      "evidence": "string"
    }
  ],
  "dates": [
    {
      "date": "YYYY-MM-DD or string",
      "meaning": "string",
      "evidence": "string"
    }
  ],
  "obligations": [
    {
      "party": "string",
      "action": "string",
      "deadline": "string|null",
      "evidence": "string"
    }
  ],
  "amounts": [
    {
      "value": "string",
      "currency": "string|null",
      "context": "string",
      "evidence": "string"
    }
  ],
  "risks": [
    {
      "risk": "string",
      "severity": "low|medium|high",
      "evidence": "string"
    }
  ],
  "confidence": "number"
}

Few-shot examples:
Example 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.
Example 1 output: {"document_type":"service agreement","entities":[{"name":"Vendor","role":"service provider","evidence":"Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports"}],"dates":[{"date":"ten business days after quarter end","meaning":"report deadline","evidence":"within ten business days after quarter end"}],"obligations":[{"party":"Vendor","action":"provide quarterly uptime reports","deadline":"ten business days after quarter end","evidence":"Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end"}],"amounts":[],"risks":[{"risk":"termination after repeated uncured breaches","severity":"medium","evidence":"Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches"}],"confidence":0.92}
Example 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.
Example 2 output: {"document_type":"medical policy","entities":[{"name":"clinical review committee","role":"approver","evidence":"approved by the clinical review committee"}],"dates":[{"date":"before treatment begins","meaning":"approval timing","evidence":"unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins"}],"obligations":[],"amounts":[],"risks":[{"risk":"experimental therapy excluded without prior approval","severity":"high","evidence":"policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved"}],"confidence":0.9}
Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable evidence threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of review, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects monitoring, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision.

Additional extraction policy:
A reviewer should flag inconsistent vendor language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable encryption threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 7.2 states that the operations lead must review access evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable access threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of attestation, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects classification, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 17.6 states that the compliance officer must review approval evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent approval language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 5.8 states that the contract manager must review exception evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable audit threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent exception language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent approval language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable encryption threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent access language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects attestation, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of encryption, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of incident, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects monitoring, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects risk, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects review, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects approval, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent audit.

Document:
The operations lead may rely on revenue data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 4.4 states that the review committee must review amortization evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable impairment threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of currency, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of margin, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The operations lead may rely on dividend data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 12.8 states that the administrator must review portfolio evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects segment, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent.

Task: Extract termination clauses.


Prompt:
Instruction:
You are a careful information extraction system.
Return only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.
Preserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.
Prefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.

JSON schema:
{
  "document_type": "string",
  "entities": [
    {
      "name": "string",
      "role": "string",
      "evidence": "string"
    }
  ],
  "dates": [
    {
      "date": "YYYY-MM-DD or string",
      "meaning": "string",
      "evidence": "string"
    }
  ],
  "obligations": [
    {
      "party": "string",
      "action": "string",
      "deadline": "string|null",
      "evidence": "string"
    }
  ],
  "amounts": [
    {
      "value": "string",
      "currency": "string|null",
      "context": "string",
      "evidence": "string"
    }
  ],
  "risks": [
    {
      "risk": "string",
      "severity": "low|medium|high",
      "evidence": "string"
    }
  ],
  "confidence": "number"
}

Few-shot examples:
Example 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.
Example 1 output: {"document_type":"service agreement","entities":[{"name":"Vendor","role":"service provider","evidence":"Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports"}],"dates":[{"date":"ten business days after quarter end","meaning":"report deadline","evidence":"within ten business days after quarter end"}],"obligations":[{"party":"Vendor","action":"provide quarterly uptime reports","deadline":"ten business days after quarter end","evidence":"Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end"}],"amounts":[],"risks":[{"risk":"termination after repeated uncured breaches","severity":"medium","evidence":"Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches"}],"confidence":0.92}
Example 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.
Example 2 output: {"document_type":"medical policy","entities":[{"name":"clinical review committee","role":"approver","evidence":"approved by the clinical review committee"}],"dates":[{"date":"before treatment begins","meaning":"approval timing","evidence":"unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins"}],"obligations":[],"amounts":[],"risks":[{"risk":"experimental therapy excluded without prior approval","severity":"high","evidence":"policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved"}],"confidence":0.9}
Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable evidence threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of review, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects monitoring, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision.

Additional extraction policy:
A reviewer should flag inconsistent vendor language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable encryption threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 7.2 states that the operations lead must review access evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable access threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of attestation, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects classification, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 17.6 states that the compliance officer must review approval evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent approval language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 5.8 states that the contract manager must review exception evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable audit threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent exception language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent approval language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable encryption threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent access language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects attestation, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of encryption, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of incident, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects monitoring, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects risk, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects review, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects approval, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent audit.

Document:
The service owner may rely on deployment data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable timeout threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 12.3 states that the compliance officer must review throughput evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The compliance officer may rely on serializer data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects schema, the service owner must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of cache, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable configuration threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable deployment threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent.

Task: Extract jurisdiction-specific requirements.


Prompt:
Instruction:
You are a careful information extraction system.
Return only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.
Preserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.
Prefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.

JSON schema:
{
  "document_type": "string",
  "entities": [
    {
      "name": "string",
      "role": "string",
      "evidence": "string"
    }
  ],
  "dates": [
    {
      "date": "YYYY-MM-DD or string",
      "meaning": "string",
      "evidence": "string"
    }
  ],
  "obligations": [
    {
      "party": "string",
      "action": "string",
      "deadline": "string|null",
      "evidence": "string"
    }
  ],
  "amounts": [
    {
      "value": "string",
      "currency": "string|null",
      "context": "string",
      "evidence": "string"
    }
  ],
  "risks": [
    {
      "risk": "string",
      "severity": "low|medium|high",
      "evidence": "string"
    }
  ],
  "confidence": "number"
}

Few-shot examples:
Example 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.
Example 1 output: {"document_type":"service agreement","entities":[{"name":"Vendor","role":"service provider","evidence":"Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports"}],"dates":[{"date":"ten business days after quarter end","meaning":"report deadline","evidence":"within ten business days after quarter end"}],"obligations":[{"party":"Vendor","action":"provide quarterly uptime reports","deadline":"ten business days after quarter end","evidence":"Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end"}],"amounts":[],"risks":[{"risk":"termination after repeated uncured breaches","severity":"medium","evidence":"Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches"}],"confidence":0.92}
Example 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.
Example 2 output: {"document_type":"medical policy","entities":[{"name":"clinical review committee","role":"approver","evidence":"approved by the clinical review committee"}],"dates":[{"date":"before treatment begins","meaning":"approval timing","evidence":"unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins"}],"obligations":[],"amounts":[],"risks":[{"risk":"experimental therapy excluded without prior approval","severity":"high","evidence":"policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved"}],"confidence":0.9}
Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable evidence threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of review, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects monitoring, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision.

Additional extraction policy:
A reviewer should flag inconsistent vendor language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable encryption threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 7.2 states that the operations lead must review access evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable access threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of attestation, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects classification, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 17.6 states that the compliance officer must review approval evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent approval language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 5.8 states that the contract manager must review exception evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable audit threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent exception language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent approval language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable encryption threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent access language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects attestation, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of encryption, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of incident, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects monitoring, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects risk, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects review, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects approval, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent audit.

Document:
If a material change affects review, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of classification, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 1.5 states that the administrator must review encryption evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of approval, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of audit, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 6.4 states that the administrator must review audit evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects retention, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent audit language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The administrator may rely on approval data when the source is validated, the exception is.

Task: Extract exceptions and carve-outs.


Prompt:
Instruction:
You are a careful information extraction system.
Return only valid JSON. Do not include markdown, commentary, or speculative fields.
Preserve source wording for quoted evidence. Use null when a requested value is absent.
Prefer arrays for repeated facts and include a confidence value between 0 and 1.

JSON schema:
{
  "document_type": "string",
  "entities": [
    {
      "name": "string",
      "role": "string",
      "evidence": "string"
    }
  ],
  "dates": [
    {
      "date": "YYYY-MM-DD or string",
      "meaning": "string",
      "evidence": "string"
    }
  ],
  "obligations": [
    {
      "party": "string",
      "action": "string",
      "deadline": "string|null",
      "evidence": "string"
    }
  ],
  "amounts": [
    {
      "value": "string",
      "currency": "string|null",
      "context": "string",
      "evidence": "string"
    }
  ],
  "risks": [
    {
      "risk": "string",
      "severity": "low|medium|high",
      "evidence": "string"
    }
  ],
  "confidence": "number"
}

Few-shot examples:
Example 1 document: Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end. Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches.
Example 1 output: {"document_type":"service agreement","entities":[{"name":"Vendor","role":"service provider","evidence":"Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports"}],"dates":[{"date":"ten business days after quarter end","meaning":"report deadline","evidence":"within ten business days after quarter end"}],"obligations":[{"party":"Vendor","action":"provide quarterly uptime reports","deadline":"ten business days after quarter end","evidence":"Vendor must provide quarterly uptime reports within ten business days after quarter end"}],"amounts":[],"risks":[{"risk":"termination after repeated uncured breaches","severity":"medium","evidence":"Customer may terminate after two uncured material breaches"}],"confidence":0.92}
Example 2 document: The policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins.
Example 2 output: {"document_type":"medical policy","entities":[{"name":"clinical review committee","role":"approver","evidence":"approved by the clinical review committee"}],"dates":[{"date":"before treatment begins","meaning":"approval timing","evidence":"unless approved by the clinical review committee before treatment begins"}],"obligations":[],"amounts":[],"risks":[{"risk":"experimental therapy excluded without prior approval","severity":"high","evidence":"policy excludes experimental therapy unless approved"}],"confidence":0.9}
Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable evidence threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of review, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects monitoring, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision.

Additional extraction policy:
A reviewer should flag inconsistent vendor language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable encryption threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 7.2 states that the operations lead must review access evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable access threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of attestation, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects classification, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 17.6 states that the compliance officer must review approval evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent approval language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 5.8 states that the contract manager must review exception evidence before the submission date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable audit threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent exception language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent approval language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable encryption threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent access language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects attestation, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of encryption, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of incident, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects monitoring, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects risk, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects review, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects approval, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. A reviewer should flag inconsistent audit.

Document:
Section 4.3 states that the compliance officer must review sample evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 17.2 states that the compliance officer must review replication evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of cohort, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of hypothesis, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of hypothesis, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent hypothesis language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The contract manager may rely on variance data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 12.3 states that the administrator must review sample evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent dataset language, missing approvals, unusual timing,.

Task: Extract risks that require manual review.