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 revenue language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The administrator may rely on expense 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 asset language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent asset language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 16.6 states that the compliance officer must review portfolio evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects quarter, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects asset, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 1.7 states that the administrator must review asset.

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:
A reviewer should flag inconsistent runtime language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects permission, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable endpoint threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 3.8 states that the administrator must review namespace evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable migration threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The contract manager may rely on timeout data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of permission, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The administrator may rely on endpoint data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent latency language, missing.

Task: Extract risks that require manual review.

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:
If a material change affects encryption, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 2.7 states that the administrator must review approval evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of audit, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable encryption threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 6.5 states that the operations lead must review evidence evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. The compliance officer may rely on policy data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects exception, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of approval, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of classification, historical.

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 procedure requires a comparison of model, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent variance language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects variance, the contract manager must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 12.6 states that the service owner must review observation evidence before the escalation date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of variance, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The service owner may rely on appendix data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. Section 12.4 states that the compliance officer must review baseline evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 11.7 states that the operations lead must review model evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. Section 10.6 states that the contract.

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:
Section 8.4 states that the contract manager must review governing evidence before the certification date and document the rationale in the official record. If a material change affects breach, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The operations lead may rely on assignment data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The review committee may rely on liability data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. A reviewer should flag inconsistent governing language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects obligation, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of indemnity, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent remedy language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects counterparty,.

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:
A reviewer should flag inconsistent diagnosis language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. If a material change affects member, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable protocol threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of diagnosis, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of benefit, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects network, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 10.6 states that the operations lead must review authorization evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent claims language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 14.5 states that the contract manager must review protocol evidence before the implementation date.

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:
A reviewer should flag inconsistent guidance language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent guidance language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent amortization language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The service owner may rely on expense data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects liability, 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 margin threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. A reviewer should flag inconsistent portfolio language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent currency language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. A reviewer should flag inconsistent asset language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict.

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:
Section 12.9 states that the operations lead must review worker evidence before the renewal date and document the rationale in the official record. The service owner may rely on runtime 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 callback threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The contract manager may rely on throughput data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The review committee may rely on endpoint data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. The procedure requires a comparison of permission, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of migration, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. The procedure requires a comparison of deployment, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected.

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:
The procedure requires a comparison of monitoring, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 11.6 states that the review committee must review retention evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. The procedure requires a comparison of review, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects access, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable vendor threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. If a material change affects exception, the operations lead must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The compliance officer may rely on control data when the source is validated, the exception is approved, and the responsible owner confirms operational readiness. If a material change affects evidence, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of vendor, historical.

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:
If a material change affects cohort, the administrator must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. If a material change affects finding, the compliance officer must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. Section 13.5 states that the review committee must review sample evidence before the reporting date and document the rationale in the official record. A reviewer should flag inconsistent metric language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable sample threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of dataset, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. If a material change affects observation, the review committee must notify stakeholders, update the register, and preserve supporting artifacts for audit review. The procedure requires a comparison of ablation, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent replication language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations.

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 termination, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable governing threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. The procedure requires a comparison of liability, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. Section 1.9 states that the compliance officer must review counterparty evidence before the escalation 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. Section 7.3 states that the review committee must review indemnity evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. 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 liability threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 2.1 states that the contract manager must review assignment evidence before the escalation date and document the.

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 procedure requires a comparison of exclusion, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent appeal language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. The procedure requires a comparison of clinical, historical performance, and current constraints before the final recommendation is submitted. A reviewer should flag inconsistent referral language, missing approvals, unusual timing, and obligations that conflict with the baseline policy. Section 6.9 states that the administrator must review diagnosis evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in the official record. 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 dosage threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Records should identify the decision maker, affected business unit, applicable member threshold, and any dependency that could change the outcome. Section 15.1 states that the operations lead must review dosage evidence before the implementation date and document the rationale in.

Task: Extract all dates and deadlines.